haus

update_contact

Update a contact by id. Only the fields supplied are changed; omitted fields keep their current value (dateOfBirth is the exception: an empty string explicitly clears it).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The id of the contact to update, as returned by create_contact or list_contacts.
`email`	No	The contact's email address. Omit to leave unchanged.
`notes`	No	Free-text notes about the contact. Omit to leave unchanged.
`phone`	No	The contact's phone number, in any format. Omit to leave unchanged.
`address`	No	The contact's postal address. Omit to leave unchanged; when supplied, replaces the whole address.
`lastName`	No	The contact's last (family) name. Omit to leave unchanged.
`firstName`	No	The contact's first name. Omit to leave unchanged.
`dateOfBirth`	No	YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit or pass null to leave unchanged; pass an empty string to clear it.
`displayName`	No	An alternate name to show for the contact instead of first/last, e.g. a nickname, company name, or role. Omit to leave unchanged.
`prepareBirthdayPresent`	No	Whether to prepare a birthday present for this contact. Omit to leave unchanged.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description clearly discloses the partial-update semantics: only supplied fields are changed, omitted fields retain their value, and the special handling of dateOfBirth with an empty string. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then explains the key behavioral nuance in a parenthetical. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential update semantics for a 10-parameter tool with a nested address object. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required. It lacks details about error handling or permissions, but these are not necessary for tool invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concise general rule about omitted fields, but this is already reflected in each parameter's 'Omit to leave unchanged' note. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 clearly states the tool updates a contact by its id, using a specific verb and resource. It also conveys the partial-update behavior, distinguishing it from related tools like create_contact or delete_contact.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for modifying an existing contact by id, but it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus creating a new contact or deleting one. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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

All haus 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?