FastBound MCP

Update disposition

update_disposition

Idempotent

Update pending disposition header details—type, date, note, TTSN/OTSN, PO/invoice/tracking, theft-loss/destroyed. Uses read-merge-write to keep unspecified fields; dry-run by default, pass confirm:true to write.

Instructions

Edit header fields on a PENDING disposition (type, date, note, TTSN/OTSN, PO/invoice/tracking, theft-loss/destroyed details). Read-merge-write so unspecified fields keep their values. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	GUID of the pending disposition.
`date`	No
`note`	No
`otsn`	No
`ttsn`	No
`type`	No	Disposition type (see list_smartlists DisposeType).
`account`	No	Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
`confirm`	No	Set true to actually execute. Omit or false returns a DRY RUN preview that sends nothing.
`auditUser`	No	Email recorded as X-AuditUser for the ATF audit trail. Overrides FASTBOUND_AUDIT_USER for this call. Must be an active user on the account.
`externalId`	No
`generateTTSN`	No
`invoiceNumber`	No
`destroyed_Date`	No
`submissionDate`	No
`theftLoss_Type`	No
`destroyed_Witness1`	No
`destroyed_Witness2`	No
`purchaseOrderNumber`	No
`destroyed_Description`	No
`shipmentTrackingNumber`	No
`theftLoss_DiscoveredDate`	No
`theftLoss_PoliceIncidentNumber`	No
`theftLoss_ATFIssuedIncidentNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Aug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing three important behaviors: read-merge-write semantics so unspecified fields are preserved, dry-run by default, and the need to pass confirm:true to actually execute. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. The final one-word "Write." is redundant after "Edit" and "Read-merge-write," so not every word earns its place, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 23-parameter update tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description provides essential operational context: PENDING scope, merge behavior, dry-run default, and confirmation requirement. However, it does not describe the expected response format, field-level requirements, or what happens after confirmation, so an agent is left with some uncertainty in a complex call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate. It does group many parameters into meaningful categories (TTSN/OTSN, PO/invoice/tracking, theft-loss/destroyed details) and clarifies confirm, but several parameters like externalId, generateTTSN, and submissionDate are left without added semantics. The merge behavior helps explain unspecified parameters generally, but the compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Edit header fields on a PENDING disposition," which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like commit_disposition, delete_disposition, or dispose. The parenthetical field list further scopes what the tool operates on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context by limiting the tool to PENDING dispositions and to header fields only, which implies when it should be used versus other disposition tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the PENDING constraint and read-merge-write/dry-run workflow provide solid usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Update disposition

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools