SMI Aware Assistant

Update Subject

smi_update_subject

Idempotent

Partially updates an SMI subject via PATCH /subjects/:id. type (PERSON or COMPANY) is required on every call — the SMI backend requires it as a discriminator on every subject PATCH. Editable fields match the API contract: firstName/lastName (or companyName for a COMPANY), birthYear/birthMonth/birthDay, and gender. At least one editable field must be provided.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	The subject's type. Required on every call as a discriminator, even when it isn't changing — SMI's PATCH endpoint rejects the request without it. PERSON for a person, COMPANY for a company or organization.
`gender`	No	The subject's updated gender (PERSON subjects only).
`birthDay`	No	The subject's updated day of birth. Treated as the day the company was founded, for a COMPANY subject.
`lastName`	No	The subject's updated last name, required whenever type is PERSON.
`birthYear`	No	The subject's updated birth year. Treated as the year the company was founded, for a COMPANY subject.
`firstName`	No	The subject's updated first name, required whenever type is PERSON.
`subjectId`	Yes	The SMI subject id to update, from a prior smi_get_subject call.
`birthMonth`	No	The subject's updated birth month, as a number from 1 (January) to 12 (December). Treated as the month the company was founded, for a COMPANY subject.
`companyName`	No	The subject's updated company name, required whenever type is COMPANY.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subjectId`	Yes
`updatedFields`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the SMI backend requires type as a discriminator even when unchanged, and a PATCH with no editable fields is invalid. This helps the agent avoid a likely failure mode.

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, all necessary, with the endpoint and most important constraint front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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?

Given the rich input schema, the output schema, and the annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral rules: partial-patch semantics, required type discriminator, editable fields, and the at-least-one-field requirement. Nothing critical is missing for calling this tool correctly.

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% and each parameter is already well described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by introducing the cross-field constraint that at least one editable field must be supplied, which is not encoded in the schema's required list. It also groups the editable fields into an API-contract summary.

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 verb ('Partially updates'), the resource ('SMI subject'), and the exact endpoint ('PATCH /subjects/:id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like smi_get_subject and the smi_add_* family by making the update semantics explicit.

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 gives clear operational context: type is required on every call, editable fields are enumerated, and at least one editable field must be provided. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the update-versus-add/get distinction is strongly implied.

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

All SMI Aware Assistant 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?