Conciergr

Add or edit a person on the team

save_team_member

Destructive

The people who work the chats (up to 10 besides the account owner). role owner = the Portal and the Team Inbox, billing included; staff = the Team Inbox only, where they read every chat and reply under their own name. firstName shows on their replies (up to 20 characters). email is the address they sign in with (one person each, not a shared mailbox); they get a sign-in email. whatsapp (optional, with country code) gets urgent alerts, such as a child not collected. Give id to edit someone listed in get_overview team; leave it out to add.

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": {
      "firstName": "<firstName>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "save_team_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`role`	Yes
`email`	No
`whatsapp`	No
`firstName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), it discloses the 10-member quota, the outbound sign-in email side effect, and the access/billing consequences of the owner role — all meaningful for a mutation. It does not say what happens when the quota is exceeded or when an edit overwrites an existing role, so it isn't fully transparent.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded with the resource definition and quota, then walks parameters in order, ending with the add/edit rule. Every clause carries information, though the opening fragment 'The people who work the chats' is slightly awkward as a lead.

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?

With no output schema and 5 undocumented-schema parameters, the description covers all inputs, the quota, the notification side effect, and the id lookup path. Missing only failure behavior (quota exceeded, duplicate email) for a destructive, open-world mutation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: role enum values are explained (owner = Portal + Team Inbox + billing; staff = Team Inbox only), firstName's 20-character limit and display location, email's sign-in/non-shared semantics, whatsapp's country-code format and use for urgent alerts, and id's edit-vs-add 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?

The description states the specific resource (team members who work the chats, capped at 10 besides the owner) and both operations — add when `id` is omitted, edit when it is given. This clearly separates it from the sibling remove_team_member and from get_overview, which it references as the source of ids.

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 gives an explicit decision rule — 'Give id to edit someone listed in get_overview `team`; leave it out to add' — which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It does not explicitly contrast with remove_team_member or state prerequisites like admin rights, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Conciergr tools Inspect

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

Need Help?