MightyAutomation

Update a contact

update_contact

DestructiveIdempotent

Update fields on an existing contact — move it to a new pipeline stage, change lifecycle, set email/phone/name, or mark do_not_contact. Only the fields you pass are changed; tags replaces the tag set (use add_tag to merge instead).

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Replacement tag list — this REPLACES existing tags. Use add_tag to merge.
`email`	No	The contact email address. Use to locate a contact when you do not have its id, or to set a new email on update_contact.
`phone`	No	Phone number.
`last_name`	No	Last name.
`lifecycle`	No
`contact_id`	Yes	The contact id (uuid) from find_contact / list_contacts / search_leads.
`first_name`	No	First name.
`do_not_contact`	No	true → suppress all outbound messaging to this contact.
`pipeline_stage`	No	Stage name — must match a stage from list_pipeline_stages.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No
`error`	No	Present only when ok is false.
`contact`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating that only passed fields change and that tags is a full replacement rather than a merge. It stops short of explaining why the call is flagged destructive (e.g., that omitted tags are dropped).

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 tightly packed sentences with the core mutation semantics front-loaded and the tag caveat immediately following; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential mental model: partial updates and tag replacement. The remaining gap is disambiguation from upsert_contact and a note on why the call is destructive.

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?

With 89% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description earns one more by summarizing the meaning of the field groups and by calling out the replace-vs-merge behavior of tags, which is the most error-prone parameter. It adds no detail on pipeline_stage validation beyond what the schema says.

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 ('Update fields on an existing contact') and enumerates the concrete field families it can change (pipeline stage, lifecycle, email/phone/name, do_not_contact). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_tag and upsert_contact.

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?

Gives a clear use context (partial update of an existing contact) and explicitly routes tag merging to add_tag, with the replacement semantics spelled out. It does not, however, distinguish itself from upsert_contact, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.

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

All MightyAutomation 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?