Skip to main content
Glama

Update the account settings

update_account_settings
Idempotent

Change the settings of the account. Send only what the user is changing: every setting you leave out keeps its value. billing_country, billing_address and intra_eu_vat_number clear when you send null; name, language and timezone keep their value on null, so name the language or the time zone you want. A postal address and a VAT number travel with billing_country: send the country in the same call. What you write here goes on the next invoices of the account, and the invoices already issued keep the details they carry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoLegal name of the account, the one printed on its invoices.
languageNoThe language we write to this account in: emails, and the hosted payment page of a top-up.
timezoneNoThe time zone the hours of the account are shown in, as an IANA identifier: "Europe/Paris", "America/New_York", "UTC".
billing_addressNoPostal address of the account, one string per line, like ["12 Example Street", "75001 Paris"]. The list replaces the previous address; [] or null clears it. Three lines at most, so the address block of an invoice stays readable.
billing_countryNoBilling country, as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code: "FR", "US", "BR". It decides the tax treatment of the next invoices, so it is the country of the entity being billed, not where the user happens to be.
intra_eu_vat_numberNoIntra-EU VAT number, for an account billed in an EU member state: the two-letter country code followed by the national number, like "FR12345678901". It goes on the invoices of the account.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds crucial behavioral nuances: null clearing for some fields but preserving for others, field dependencies, and invoice effects. No contradictions.

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?

The description is three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the main directive. It covers key points without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description effectively explains null behavior, field dependencies, and business logic (invoices). It could mention the response format, but it is largely complete for a mutation tool.

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. The description adds value by explaining null clearing behavior, the requirement to send billing_country with billing_address and VAT number, and invoice impact. This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 title and description clearly state 'Change the settings of the account', which is a specific verb+resource. The sibling list includes 'get_account_settings' for reading, so this tool is well-distinguished as the write counterpart.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: send only changed fields, null behavior differs per field, billing_country must accompany address/VAT. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the current instructions are thorough for typical use.

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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions go out of their way to separate near-neighbor concepts like surfaces vs corroborations and score series vs raw responses. A few related pairs (get_results/get_responses, get_credits/get_usage, create_surface/create_corroboration) could still be confused at a glance, so it is not a perfect 5.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern across all 67 tools, with clear families like create_, update_, get_, list_, archive_, restore_, and delete_. Minor quirks such as topup_credits as one word do not break the overall uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

67 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, even for a broad brand-monitoring domain. The surface is bloated with lifecycle variants per entity, and the sheer number makes the server hard to navigate and prompt against.

Completeness5/5

The server covers full lifecycles for projects, trackers, surfaces, corroborations, quests, logbook entries, keyword discoveries, competitor scans, link targets, sources, support, and billing. Archive/restore and soft-delete paths prevent dead ends, and nearly every obvious workflow has a corresponding tool.

Resources