DirectIQ

directiq_write_request

Destructive

Issue an authenticated POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE request to any DirectIQ endpoint. May create, modify, or permanently delete account data, including bulk operations. Prefer a dedicated directiq_* tool when one exists; use this only for operations without one, found with directiq_list_endpoints, and confirm destructive calls with the user first. Full request/response schemas for each group are in the DirectIQ API docs at https://rest.directiq.com/{group}/swagger/index.html (core, contacts, subscription).

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": {
      "group": "<group>",
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "directiq_write_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Optional JSON request body: an object, or an array for bulk operations
`path`	Yes	Endpoint path within the group, e.g. '/contact/list' or '/email/send'
`group`	Yes	DirectIQ API group: core, contacts, or subscription
`query`	No	Optional query parameters
`method`	Yes	HTTP method

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / query / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: authentication is required, bulk operations are possible, deletions are permanent, and destructive calls should be confirmed with the user. It also points to per-group Swagger docs for request/response schemas, which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then the routing rule, then the documentation pointer. Every clause earns its place; the URL is long but supplies necessary per-group schema detail.

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 generic escape-hatch mutation tool with three groups and an open path parameter, this covers the essentials: mutation scope, destructive confirmation, discovery path, and where the authoritative per-endpoint schemas live. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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% and each parameter already carries a description and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantics, notably that the body may be an array for bulk operations, and otherwise defers to the referenced Swagger docs rather than explaining parameters itself.

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 specific verb and resource: issue an authenticated POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE to any DirectIQ endpoint, with the scope of mutation spelled out. It also positions itself against the many dedicated directiq_* write siblings, so an agent can tell immediately it is the escape hatch rather than a preferred path.

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?

Explicit routing rules: prefer a dedicated directiq_* tool when one exists, use this only for operations without one, find those with directiq_list_endpoints, and confirm destructive calls with the user first. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, along with the named discovery sibling.

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

All DirectIQ 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.