huly-mcp-selfhost

update_person

Update an existing Huly contact person's first name, last name, or city by specifying the workspace and the person's name or ID.

Instructions

Update a contact person

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "person": "<person>"
    },
    "name": "update_person"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No
`person`	Yes	Person name or id
`lastName`	No
`firstName`	No
`workspace`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is thin. The description does not disclose whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields left intact) or a full replace, whether it requires write permissions, what happens if the person is not found, or anything about the response — all of which matter for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is free of waste and front-loaded, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no structure to convey optionality or required context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with two required parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context: which fields are optional, partial-update semantics, and error behavior. It is materially incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'person' is documented), and the description adds no meaning for the other four parameters (workspace, firstName, lastName, city). It does not clarify whether person accepts a name or ID, or how workspace scopes the update, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ('Update a contact person'), which is enough to avoid confusion with get_person or create_person by name alone. However, it never says what aspects of the person are updatable (name fields, city, workspace association) or the scope of the update, so the purpose is only minimally specified.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_person or get_person, no prerequisites (e.g., that a workspace and person identifier are required), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server