The Bridge

Update User

update_user

Idempotent

Update a user of a tenant, addressed by EMAIL. Only the fields you pass are changed. Arguments: tenantName (tenant NAME), email (the user), role (a role KEY from list_roles, e.g. "ADMIN"), enabled (false disables sign-in without deleting the account — prefer this over remove_user when access should be revocable), firstName, lastName. Fails with TENANT_NOT_FOUND / TENANT_AMBIGUOUS / USER_NOT_FOUND / USER_AMBIGUOUS without changing anything. Before writing app code that consumes this, call get_integration_guide with topic=team and the framework the app uses.

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": {
      "tenantName": "<tenantName>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	No	Id of the Bridge app to act on for this call (see list_apps). Omit to use the current app.
`role`	No	Role KEY from list_roles, e.g. "ADMIN".
`email`	Yes	Email address of the user to change, as list_users shows it.
`enabled`	No	false disables the user without deleting them.
`lastName`	No	New last name.
`firstName`	No	New first name.
`tenantName`	Yes	Tenant NAME from list_tenants (a tenant id is accepted as a fallback).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: partial update semantics, specific failure modes that leave the user unchanged, and the sign-in-disabling effect of enabled=false without account deletion.

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?

Front-loads purpose and partial-update behavior, then lists arguments, failure modes, and an integration-guide pointer. Every sentence earns its place and the dense format suits the tool's complexity.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral and routing details an agent needs: partial updates, error outcomes, and the remove_user alternative. The omission of the optional app parameter is covered by the schema and does not block correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning beyond the schema for several parameters, especially the preference for enabled=false over remove_user. It omits the optional app parameter from its argument list, keeping it from a full 5.

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 (Update), resource (user of a tenant), and addressing key (EMAIL), plus partial-update semantics. It distinguishes itself from remove_user by explaining the enabled=false alternative for revocable access.

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?

Explicitly says only passed fields change, gives a clear alternative (prefer enabled=false over remove_user when access should be revocable), and points to get_integration_guide before writing app code. This covers when to use it and how it differs from a sibling.

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

All The Bridge 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.