Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_update_team

Modify team details in Pylon customer support platform by updating the team name and member list using the team ID.

Instructions

Update an existing team

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe team ID
nameNoUpdated team name
user_idsNoUpdated list of user IDs

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for pylon_update_team: calls PylonClient.updateTeam and returns formatted JSON response.
    async ({ id, ...data }) => {
    	const result = await client.updateTeam(id, data);
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    	};
    },
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for updating a team: id (required), name and user_ids (optional).
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The team ID'),
    	name: z.string().optional().describe('Updated team name'),
    	user_ids: z
    		.array(z.string())
    		.optional()
    		.describe('Updated list of user IDs'),
    },
  • src/index.ts:632-649 (registration)
    Registration of the pylon_update_team MCP tool using server.tool().
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_update_team',
    	'Update an existing team',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The team ID'),
    		name: z.string().optional().describe('Updated team name'),
    		user_ids: z
    			.array(z.string())
    			.optional()
    			.describe('Updated list of user IDs'),
    	},
    	async ({ id, ...data }) => {
    		const result = await client.updateTeam(id, data);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • PylonClient helper method that sends PATCH request to /teams/{id} to update team name and/or user_ids.
    	async updateTeam(
    		id: string,
    		data: { name?: string; user_ids?: string[] },
    	): Promise<SingleResponse<Team>> {
    		return this.request<SingleResponse<Team>>('PATCH', `/teams/${id}`, data);
    	}
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing team' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the team doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Update an existing team') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools that might have similar gaps.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (id, name, user_ids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 team' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pylon_create_team (creation) and pylon_get_team (retrieval). However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the team can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing team ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new teams), or how it differs from similar update tools like pylon_update_account or pylon_update_contact. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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