agendaforge

update_contact

Update a contact's profile fields, tags, or custom fields. Depending on the organization's settings, this either executes immediately or files a proposal for approval; the response status field says which happened.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bio`	No	New biography.
`org`	No	Organization slug. Only needed when you belong to multiple organizations; must be one returned by list_my_orgs.
`tags`	No	Replacement list of free-text tags for the contact.
`type`	No	The contact's type/category.
`phone`	No	New phone number.
`rating`	No	A numeric rating/score for the contact.
`status`	No	The contact's status. 'archived' hides them; this is reversible.
`company`	No	New company.
`eventId`	Yes	Event id, as returned by list_events.
`website`	No	New personal website URL.
`jobTitle`	No	New job title.
`lastName`	No	New last name.
`location`	No	New location.
`contactId`	Yes	The contact id to update.
`firstName`	No	New first name.
`request_id`	Yes	Client-generated unique id for this write (e.g. a UUID). Retries with the same request_id return the original executed or proposed outcome instead of creating a duplicate. Never reuse a request_id for different arguments.
`socialLinks`	No	The contact's social profile links.
`customFields`	No	Key→value map of custom fields. Only include keys you want to add or change; existing custom fields are preserved (send a key with value null to remove it). You may key each entry by the field's display name (e.g. 'Portal enabled') or its stored key, the server matches it to the correct custom field, so you do NOT need to guess the exact snake_case key. Values may be strings, numbers, or booleans. Reading the record first (search_contacts / list_sessions / list_sponsors) shows the custom fields already set.
`expertiseAreas`	No	Replacement list of the contact's areas of expertise.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds essential behavior beyond that: depending on organization settings, the update may not take effect immediately and may instead be filed as a proposal for approval, with the response status field indicating which happened. This materially changes how an agent should interpret the result.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two focused sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second delivers the critical conditional behavior and response-status guidance. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral outcome an agent needs to handle: whether the update executed immediately or was filed for approval, and how to tell which happened via the status field. The complex parameter details are already handled thoroughly by the schema, so the description is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The input schema already documents all 19 parameters with 100% coverage, including nuanced behavior for customFields and request_id. The description's mention of 'profile fields, tags, or custom fields' is a helpful summary but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource ('a contact'), the action ('Update'), and the scope ('profile fields, tags, or custom fields') with a specific verb. This clearly distinguishes update_contact from sibling tools like update_session and update_sponsor.

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 usage context: it updates contact data, and the org settings determine whether it executes immediately or files an approval proposal. It does not explicitly list when to prefer a sibling tool such as add_contact_note, but the resource scope is specific enough to make the primary use case obvious.

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

All agendaforge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools use distinct resource+action patterns and descriptions actively disambiguate similar cases, but several pairs remain easy to confuse: search vs semantic_search, send_email vs send_speaker_message, and the cluster around submission handling (decide_submission, set_submission_status, update_form_pipeline). The descriptions help, but the overlap is more than a single edge case.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (create_session, update_sponsor, list_events) and prefixes are applied predictably. Minor deviations like semantic_search, bare search, check_in_attendee, and list_tracks_rooms break the pattern slightly, but they are still readable and not chaotic.

Tool Count1/5

55 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even for a broad event-management platform, and it exceeds the 50+ threshold for severe over-scoping. Many tools are micro-variants of the same domain—multiple send_* tools and several submission-status tools—creating high selection burden for an agent.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of event, CRM, session, sponsor, form, and email workflows, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: events can be created and read but not updated or deleted, email templates have no update/delete path, and full form submission details and approval actions are absent. These are significant but not catastrophic because much of the core scheduling and contact workflow is covered.

Resources

Need Help?