Skip to main content
Glama

update_students

Batch update learner names or active state in Skilljar. Identify each student by ID or email; deactivating preserves enrolments. Reactivation requires two separate calls.

Instructions

Change a learner's name or active state. This is a BATCH operation.

    Identify each item by `id` (preferred) OR by `email`; at least one is required.

    `email` is READ-ONLY and behaves differently depending on what else you send:
      with no `id`   it identifies which learner to change, and is not itself changed
      with an `id`   it acts as a CONFIRMATION - if the id belongs to someone else the
                     row fails rather than writing to the wrong person

    Passing both is the safe form when you are acting on a learner you looked up
    earlier.

    Writable: `first_name`, `last_name` (max 50), and `is_inactive`. Deactivating
    here does NOT touch the learner's enrolments.

    REACTIVATING TAKES TWO SEPARATE CALLS. Setting `is_inactive: false` together
    with other fields is refused, because Skilljar accepts it and silently drops the
    other fields. Send `{is_inactive: false}` first, then the rest.

    Requires the `students:write` OAuth scope.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
studentsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYes
noteYes
totalYes
failedYes
succeededYes
Install Server

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that email is read-only and acts as confirmation when id is present, that reactivating requires two sepArate calls, that deactivating does not touch enrollments, and that the students:write scope is required. These are critical behavioral traits that the annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and batch nature, then efficiently uses line breaks to organize dense but essential details. Every sentence earns its place: identification rules, email semantics, writable fields, reactivation caveat, and OAuth scope. No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the minimal schema, one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly: identification constraints, safe usage, field restrictions, the reactivation workaround, side-effect caveat, and auth. The error case for id/email mismatch is also disclosed.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema offers only a bare 'students' array with additionalProperties true, and 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by specifying the item fields (id, email, first_name, last_name, is_inactive), the id/email requirEments, the max length of 50, and the special behavior of email.

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 clearly states it changes a learner's name or active state and identifies it as a BATCH operation. The verb+resource are specific and the writable fields are named, though it does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like deactivate_student or create_students.

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?

The description gives clear context on identification (id vs email), the safe form (passing both), and the reactivation sequencing. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over a sibling such as deactivate_student, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CloudSecurityAlliance/csa-skilljar'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server