Skip to main content
Glama

Update a person in the directory

directory_update_user
Idempotent

Change a person's title, department or manager in the directory, as when they move team. Costs $0.01 per call; nothing if it fails.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "person": "<person>"
    },
    "name": "directory_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
personYesThe person's id in the directory, or their email.
managerNoThe manager's id or email.
departmentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful cost context: $0.01 per call and nothing if it fails. It does not detail partial-update behavior or permissions, but it adds meaningful operational information beyond annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by cost information. No wasted wording; every sentence carries useful content.

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 simple four-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description gives enough to select and invoke it. It could be stronger by clarifying whether omitted fields are left unchanged or what permissions are required, but the core context is present.

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 50%, with person and manager already documented in the schema. The description lists the primary updatable fields (title, department, manager) but adds no format or usage detail beyond those names, so it is adequate but relies on the schema for parameter meaning.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: changing a person's title, department, or manager in the directory. The example 'as when they move team' clarifies the intended scenario and distinguishes it from create/get/suspend/restore sibling tools.

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?

Provides a clear usage context with 'as when they move team', which helps an agent recognize when this update tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is not ambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources