Update an existing user's name, role, positions, or skills (admin/owner only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | User name or email to find | |
| skills | No | Skills list (optional — replaces existing) | |
| new_name | No | New name (optional) | |
| new_role | No | New role: member or admin (optional) | |
| positions | No | Position titles to assign (optional — replaces existing) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authorization requirement ('admin/owner only') and the action (update), which indicates a mutation. However, it does not mention whether updates are partial or full replacements (though the schema notes 'replaces existing' for skills/positions), reversibility, or error behavior. This is minimally transparent but not deeply descriptive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, fields, and permission with no superfluous words. Every element contributes meaning, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the rich schema descriptions, the description provides a clear action, target, and authorization. It lacks explicit return-value information, but that is not critical for an update tool without an output schema. The combination of schema and description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all five parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the fields (name, role, positions, skills), which maps directly to the parameters. It does include the admin/owner permission, which is relevant context for new_role, but not significant beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('existing user') plus the fields affected ('name, role, positions, or skills'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_user (deletion) and update_team (team updates). The parenthetical '(admin/owner only)' adds an important scope condition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for modifying user attributes and notes the admin/owner restriction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like remove_user_from_org or update_org. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
