people-context

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_alias

Destructive

Correct an existing person alias by normalized value while keeping its ID; omitted fields stay unchanged, and conflicting or unknown aliases are refused.

Instructions

Correct one alias in place, matched by normalized value; omitted fields stay unchanged.

Keeps the alias's id. A new_value that normalizes to the canonical name or to another alias is refused with alias_conflict; an unknown alias is refused with alias_not_found. The result lists which of value, kind, lang, and script actually changed.

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": {
      "person_id": "<person_id>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "update_alias"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`lang`	No
`value`	Yes
`script`	No
`new_value`	No
`person_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.5.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: omitted fields are left unchanged, the alias id is preserved, and specific error codes (alias_conflict, alias_not_found) are returned. It stops short of saying whether the overwritten value is recoverable or what permissions are needed, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two short paragraphs with the core contract front-loaded in the first sentence and edge cases after. Every clause carries information — no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the update semantics, partial-update behavior, and failure modes, and briefly sketches the return value (which fields changed). The remaining gap is the destructive side — what is lost when a value is replaced and whether that is reversible.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: `value` is the lookup key matched by normalization, `new_value` is the optional replacement, and omitting kind/lang/script means they stay unchanged. It also enumerates the mutable field set (value, kind, lang, script), which maps the six parameters onto an understandable update model.

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?

"Correct one alias in place, matched by normalized value" gives a specific verb (correct/update) and resource (alias), and the phrase "in place" plus "Keeps the alias's id" separates it from add_alias/remove_alias. It never names a sibling tool, so routing against rename_person or add_alias is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by "correct one alias in place" and by the two documented refusal cases, which tell the agent this is for editing an existing alias rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as rename_person for the canonical name or add_alias for a new entry.

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