MNotify MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_contact

Update a contact's phone number and optional fields (name, email, DOB, group) by specifying the contact ID and required phone.

Instructions

Update a contact by contact_id. Requires phone; other fields optional.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dob`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	Yes
`group_id`	No
`last_name`	No
`contact_id`	Yes
`first_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', which implies mutation, but lacks details on whether changes are irreversible, permission requirements, or behavior of omitted fields (e.g., are they reset?).

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 extremely concise, using one sentence to convey the essential information. No unnecessary words or details.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no enums, the description is overly brief. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists), error handling, or limitations. More context is needed for complex updates.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to parameters. It only identifies required fields (contact_id, phone) and notes others are optional. It does not explain the purpose or allowed values of optional parameters like dob, email, or group_id.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool updates a contact using contact_id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_contact and delete_contact by specifying the update action.

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 notes that phone is required and other fields are optional, giving basic usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus other update tools like update_group or update_message_template.

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