Skip to main content
Glama

update_client_contact_details

Correct a client's name, phone or date of birth. Omit a field to leave it; pass an empty string to clear phone/dateOfBirth. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>"
    },
    "name": "update_client_contact_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
phoneNo
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
clientIdYesClient's User _id (from list_clients)
dateOfBirthNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds that the tool is confirm-gated and returns a preview until confirm:true — a real behavioral trait an agent must know. It doesn't cover permissions/role requirements or what happens on invalid clientId, leaving some gaps.

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 compact sentences with the field semantics first and the confirm-gate caveat parenthetically appended; no filler.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the update semantics and the preview/confirm flow, which is the critical missing piece from structured fields. It could say more about the preview payload and failure modes, but it is sufficient to call 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 only 40%, so the description carries needed weight: it explains omit-vs-empty-string semantics per field and restricts clearing to phone/dateOfBirth. Slight ambiguity remains about whether name can be cleared and what an empty string does for it.

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+resource ('Correct a client's name, phone or date of birth') and is instantly distinguishable from siblings like get_client_contact_details or update_my_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?

Explains the two calling modes (omit to leave, empty string to clear) and the confirm gate, which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming when to choose this over related tools (e.g., update_my_contact for self, bulk updates) or any exclusions.

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.