Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DirectIQ

by com.directiq.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

directiq_update_contact

DestructiveIdempotent

Update fields on an existing contact by ID, such as firstName, lastName, or email. Only the fields you pass change, and they overwrite the current values. To create a contact, use directiq_upsert_contact; to change list or tag membership, use the list and tag tools.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "directiq_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric contact ID (from directiq_list_contacts or directiq_get_contact)
fieldsYesContact fields to change, e.g. {"firstName": "Jamie"}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / description
      Previous value: -"Object of contact fields to update"New value: +"Contact fields to change, e.g. {\"firstName\": \"Jamie\"}"
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric contact ID"New value: +"Numeric contact ID (from directiq_list_contacts or directiq_get_contact)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important update semantics: only passed fields change and they overwrite current values, clarifying partial-update behavior beyond the 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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loads the core action, and uses the remaining space for update semantics and sibling routing. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is complete. It covers purpose, mutation behavior, and alternatives; return-value details are unnecessary because no output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics about the `fields` object: only provided fields are modified and they overwrite existing values. It also gives example field names, helping the agent understand the nested field map.

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 a specific verb and resource—updating fields on an existing contact by ID—and gives concrete field examples. It also distinguishes this tool from directiq_upsert_contact and the list/tag membership tools by route.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use this tool versus directiq_upsert_contact for creation and the list/tag tools for membership changes. These alternatives directly cover the main sibling tools an agent might confuse with this one.

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

All DirectIQ 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