Fizzy MCP Server

Update User

fizzy_update_user

Update a user's display name or profile details in a Fizzy account by providing the account slug and user ID. Requires user management permissions.

Instructions

Update a user's display name or other profile information. Requires appropriate permissions for user management.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_slug": "<account_slug>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "fizzy_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The new display name of the user
`user_id`	Yes	The unique user identifier: a 25-character identifier, e.g., '0000000000000000000000abc'. Get available user IDs from fizzy_get_users.
`account_slug`	Yes	The account slug identifier (e.g., '123456' or '/123456'). This identifies which Fizzy account to operate on. Get available account slugs from fizzy_get_identity or fizzy_get_accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is captured. The description adds a useful note about requiring appropriate permissions, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as reversibility or side effects beyond the update.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is stated concisely without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple update operation with three fully documented required parameters and annotations covering the mutation safety profile, the description covers the essential points: what is updated and that permissions are required. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, and the parameter schema is highly descriptive.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description, including examples and sources for user_id and account_slug. The description itself does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the operation as updating a user's display name or profile information, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fizzy_get_user and fizzy_deactivate_user by focusing on the update action, though the phrase 'or other profile information' is somewhat broad.

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?

The description implies it should be used when a user's profile information needs to be changed, and it mentions that user-management permissions are required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as fizzy_deactivate_user.

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

Deploy Server