Update a contact's topic subscriptions by specifying the contact ID and a list of topics with opt-in or opt-out choices.
Update a contact's topic subscriptions (PATCH /contacts/:id/topics). Provide topics as an array of { id, subscription: 'opt_in' | 'opt_out' }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topics | Yes | Subscriptions to set. Each: { id, subscription: 'opt_in' | 'opt_out' }. | |
| contact_id | Yes | The contact id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a PATCH (partial update) operation and that topics are 'subscriptions to set', implying replacement of topic subscription values. It does not clarify whether the provided array fully replaces all subscriptions or only updates the listed topic IDs, nor any side effects or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, followed immediately by the payload format. No filler or repetition beyond the essential pattern.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the endpoint, HTTP method, required parameters, and the array item structure. The only notable omission is the replace-vs-merge semantics for the topics array, which is not essential for a basic call but would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both contact_id and topics fully described. The description echoes the items shape, adding no meaning beyond the schema. The inclusion of the enum values in context is minor redundancy rather than added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact operation ('Update a contact's topic subscriptions') and even includes the endpoint and HTTP method (PATCH /contacts/:id/topics). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_contact_topics' read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied by the verb 'Update', and the sibling get_contact_topics exists but is never referenced, so the guidance is adequate but not instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.