Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_update_contact

Update an existing contact's name, email, account, avatar, or portal role by providing the contact ID and fields to change.

Instructions

Update an existing contact

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe contact ID
nameNoUpdated name
emailNoUpdated email
account_idNoUpdated account association
avatar_urlNoUpdated avatar URL
portal_roleNoUpdated portal role

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:465-485 (registration)
    Registration of the 'pylon_update_contact' tool on the MCP server with its name, description, input schema (id required; name, email, account_id, avatar_url, portal_role optional), and handler implementation that calls client.updateContact.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_update_contact',
    	'Update an existing contact',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The contact ID'),
    		name: z.string().optional().describe('Updated name'),
    		email: z.string().optional().describe('Updated email'),
    		account_id: z.string().optional().describe('Updated account association'),
    		avatar_url: z.string().optional().describe('Updated avatar URL'),
    		portal_role: z
    			.enum(['no_access', 'member', 'admin'])
    			.optional()
    			.describe('Updated portal role'),
    	},
    	async ({ id, ...data }) => {
    		const result = await client.updateContact(id, data);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Handler implementation for pylon_update_contact. Destructures id from params, passes remaining data to client.updateContact, then returns the result as formatted JSON text content.
    async ({ id, ...data }) => {
    	const result = await client.updateContact(id, data);
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    	};
    },
  • Input schema for pylon_update_contact using Zod. Requires 'id' (string), and optionally accepts 'name', 'email', 'account_id', 'avatar_url' (strings), and 'portal_role' (enum: 'no_access', 'member', 'admin').
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The contact ID'),
    	name: z.string().optional().describe('Updated name'),
    	email: z.string().optional().describe('Updated email'),
    	account_id: z.string().optional().describe('Updated account association'),
    	avatar_url: z.string().optional().describe('Updated avatar URL'),
    	portal_role: z
    		.enum(['no_access', 'member', 'admin'])
    		.optional()
    		.describe('Updated portal role'),
    },
  • The PylonClient.updateContact method that performs the actual API call. Sends a PATCH request to /contacts/{id} with the partial contact data, returning a SingleResponse<Contact>.
    async updateContact(
    	id: string,
    	data: Partial<Contact>,
    ): Promise<SingleResponse<Contact>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Contact>>(
    		'PATCH',
    		`/contacts/${id}`,
    		data,
    	);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Update', which implies mutation but omits details like idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. While very concise, it is sufficient to convey the core purpose, though it could benefit from slightly more 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, a required id, and no output schema. The description does not explain return behavior, error handling, or partial update semantics, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly described in the schema. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing contact' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (contact). However, it does not differentiate it from other sibling update tools like pylon_update_account, which have similar descriptions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pylon_create_contact or pylon_delete_contact). No prerequisites or conditions specified.

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

Install Server

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/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

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