mindbody

Update a client

mindbody_update_client

Destructive

Update fields on an existing client record — only the fields you pass change. No card or billing data is accepted. cross_regional_update (Mindbody default: true) also updates the client's profiles at the region's other sites. Pass test: true to validate only. Mindbody: POST /client/updateclient.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	City.
`test`	No	When true, Mindbody validates the request but commits nothing. Use it to dry-run a write.
`email`	No	Email address.
`state`	No	State / region.
`gender`	No	Gender, as configured at the site (see the site's genders).
`country`	No	Country.
`client_id`	Yes	The client's ID (RSSID — a string, as configured by the business; see mindbody_list_clients).
`last_name`	No	Last name.
`birth_date`	No	Date of birth, ISO 8601 (e.g. 1990-04-12).
`first_name`	No	First name.
`home_phone`	No	Home phone number.
`work_phone`	No	Work phone number.
`is_prospect`	No	Mark the client as a prospect (only if the site allows prospects).
`middle_name`	No	Middle name.
`postal_code`	No	Postal code.
`referred_by`	No	How the client was referred (one of the site's referral types).
`mobile_phone`	No	Mobile phone number.
`address_line_1`	No	Street address, line 1.
`address_line_2`	No	Street address, line 2.
`send_account_emails`	No	Opt in/out of account notification emails.
`send_schedule_emails`	No	Opt in/out of schedule notification emails.
`cross_regional_update`	No	Propagate to the client's profiles at the region's other sites (Mindbody default: true).
`send_promotional_emails`	No	Opt in/out of promotional emails.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give destructiveHint:true, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: partial-mutation semantics (only passed fields change), a hard restriction (no card/billing data accepted), the default-on cross-regional propagation, and a validate-only dry-run mode. These are real behavioral facts not derivable from the annotation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the mutation contract comes first, then constraints, then the two behavioral flags. Every sentence carries information, with only the trailing endpoint reference being near-redundant.

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 23-param mutation with full schema coverage and an existing destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: partial update, data restrictions, propagation default, and dry-run. No output schema exists, but a write tool's return shape is not strictly needed here.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline. The description earns above baseline by explaining the partial-update contract and clarifying cross_regional_update's default and side effect, adding meaning the per-field schema text does not convey.

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 specific verb and resource ('Update fields on an existing client record'), and the partial-update clause ('only the fields you pass change') sharpens the scope. It is clearly distinct from mindbody_add_client, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

It offers useful operational guidance — partial-update semantics, the dry-run via test:true, and the cross_regional_update propagation — but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like mindbody_add_client or update_appointment. Usage is implied rather than declared.

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

All mindbody 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.

Update a client

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources