neuron

Update Contact

neuron_update_contact

Idempotent

Update an existing contact's details. If notes are provided, they are appended as a new structured note entry without overwriting existing notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique identifier (UUID) of the contact to update
`name`	No	Updated full name for the contact
`tags`	No	Updated tags for the contact (replaces existing tags)
`email`	No	Updated email address for the contact
`notes`	No	New note to append to the contact's existing notes
`phone`	No	Updated phone number in E.164 format (e.g., +2348012345678)
`doNotBroadcast`	No	Set true to exclude this contact from all broadcasts, false to allow
`doNotAutoRespond`	No	Set true so the bot never auto-responds to this contact, false to allow (manual/API and human sends are unaffected either way)

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly states that notes are appended as a new structured entry, which means repeated calls with the same notes would add duplicate entries. This contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation, which claims the operation is idempotent. Since the description directly conflicts with the annotation, behavioral transparency is poor.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only one extra behavioral detail about notes. No wasted words; all content is relevant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for an agent because it omits any guidance on partial update semantics (whether unspecified fields are cleared or preserved) and, more importantly, the note-appending behavior contradicts the idempotentHint annotation, making the overall behavior misleading. The presence of a full schema covers parameters, but the annotation conflict and missing usage context leave significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the notes behavior already described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the detail.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing contact's details,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from create_contact and update_contact_list by focusing on an existing contact and adds a unique note-appending behavior that sets it apart from other update tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'existing contact's' implies it is for modifying already-created contacts, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_contact or other update_* tools. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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

All neuron tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?