Dynamoi

Update Account Profile

dynamoi_update_account_profile

Destructive

Preview a display name or preferred language change. Show the preview and obtain explicit confirmation, then echo the expected current values with confirm=true.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dynamoi_update_account_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`confirm`	No
`expectedName`	No
`preferredLocale`	No
`expectedPreferredLocale`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`data`	No
`kind`	No
`field`	No
`status`	Yes
`draftId`	No
`message`	No
`retryable`	No
`nextAction`	No
`failureStage`	No
`prerequisite`	No
`screeningResult`	No
`retryAfterSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish that this mutates. Instead it adds real value by disclosing the safeguard pattern (preview-first, explicit confirmation) and an optimistic-concurrency check via echoing expected current values. It stops short of saying what the preview returns or what happens on a stale expected value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the preview/confirm workflow is front-loaded. The second sentence is long and packs confirmation, echoing and confirm=true into one clause, which is efficient but slightly hard to parse.

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 destructive mutation with five undocumented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential call protocol: preview first, confirm second, supply expected values. What is missing is the consequence of an expected-value mismatch (error vs. overwrite) and any permission or scope caveats on the account-level change.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does map to all five parameters: display name, preferred language, confirm, and the expected current values (the two expected* fields). It does not clarify the pairing between name/expectedName and preferredLocale/expectedPreferredLocale, nor the meaning of the nullable expected values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete resource (display name, preferred language) and a specific two-mode behavior (preview, then commit via confirm=true), which lets an agent distinguish this update flow from generic siblings. The only weakness is that the leading verb is 'Preview' while the tool name says 'Update', which briefly muddies whether it can mutate, though the second sentence resolves it.

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?

It gives an explicit required workflow: show the preview, obtain explicit confirmation, then re-call with confirm=true and the expected current values. There is no sibling that does account-profile updates, so a lack of named alternatives is acceptable, but there is no statement of when not to use it or who may call it.

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

All Dynamoi 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.