Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ContactZapp

by app.contactz
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Contact – Change

contact_change
Destructive

Changes a contact, as editing it in ContactZapp does. Only the fields you send change. A field you leave out keeps its value.

The change goes to every two-way account the contact is in, never to a read-only one. History records it as the user's change and names the API key.

A contact waiting in Review duplicates cannot be changed until the review is decided: 409, contact_pending_review. Send an Idempotency-Key header to make a retry safe.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe contact's `id` or its `publicId` (`CS-0042`).
bodyYesThe body of a contact create or update: the contact fields a read shows that a write can change, under the same names and in the same shapes, and nothing else. A field the body carries that is not one of them is refused with a 400 `unknown_field`, and nothing is written. That includes the read-only `id`, `publicId`, `displayName` and `updatedAt`, so writing back a whole contact as a read returned it answers 400 `unknown_field`: send only the fields you change. A create writes the fields the body carries. An update is change-only: a field the body does not carry keeps its value, a field it carries empty (`""`, `[]`, or a date whose year, month and day are all `0`) is cleared, and a list it carries replaces the stored list. `"birthday": null` clears the birthday too, and a birthday the body does not carry is kept. Fields ContactZapp keeps that a read does not show are never changed by an update.
Idempotency-KeyNoAny string of 1 to 255 bytes you choose for this write, such as a UUID. Repeat the request with the same key and body within 24 hours, and you get the first result back and nothing is written twice. The same key with a different body is a 422.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true annotations: it discloses fan-out to every two-way account but never read-only ones, that history attributes the change to the user and names the API key, the 409 pending-review block, and retry safety via Idempotency-Key. These are exactly the side effects an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Four short paragraphs, front-loaded with the edit semantics and then ordered by consequence (scope, history, error, retry). Dense but every paragraph carries usable information; only the opening UI analogy is slightly expendable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a nested-body mutation with no output schema, it covers side effects, error behavior, and idempotency well. The main gap is that it never says what the successful response contains (the updated contact, or nothing), which an agent may need after the 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 100%, so the schema already carries detailed meaning for `id`, `body` fields, clearing semantics, and `Idempotency-Key`. The description's partial-update rule is valuable but largely duplicates the `body` schema text, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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?

"Changes a contact, as editing it in ContactZapp does" gives a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes it from contact_create and contact_read by anchoring it to editing an existing record. The first sentence alone lets an agent route correctly among the siblings.

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?

It clearly establishes the partial-update contract ("Only the fields you send change") and the blocking condition (a contact pending Review duplicates returns 409 `contact_pending_review`), plus when to attach an Idempotency-Key. What's missing is an explicit pointer to contact_create for new contacts, but the verb makes the split obvious.

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

All ContactZapp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources