neuron

Update Contact List

neuron_update_contact_list

Idempotent

Update an existing contact list's name, slug, description, criteria, or refresh schedule.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Updated display name for the list
`slug`	No	Updated URL-friendly slug for the list
`criteria`	No	Updated dynamic list criteria. Set to null to clear existing criteria.
`idOrSlug`	Yes	Unique identifier (UUID) or URL-friendly slug of the contact list to update
`description`	No	Updated description of the list's purpose
`refreshSchedule`	No	Updated refresh schedule for dynamic lists

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description states 'Update' which aligns with non-readOnly. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like triggering a refresh for criteria changes or impact on members. Adequate but could add more context.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words, efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and supported fields.

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?

Given high schema coverage and annotations, description covers key fields. However, it omits that idOrSlug is required and that criteria can be nullified. Still fairly complete for a simple update tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description lists parameters but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates an existing contact list and lists specific fields (name, slug, description, criteria, refresh schedule). It distinguishes from siblings like create_contact_list by specifying 'existing' and from delete by being an update.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_contact_list or other update tools. Usage is implied (update an existing list) but lacks contrast or prerequisites.

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?