NexTool MCP for GLPI

Update user

glpi_update_user

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing GLPI user by ID to modify their profile, contact details, or access rights.

Instructions

Update an existing user by ID.

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Fields to update
`userId`	Yes	Item ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, what permissions are needed, or how failures on a missing userId behave.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes from omission, not from efficient packing of useful information.

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 destructive, record-mutating tool with a nested free-form input object, the description omits which fields are updatable, permission requirements, and partial-vs-full update semantics. The output schema and annotations cover return format and safety, but the mutation contract itself is undocumented.

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% and there are only 2 parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the 'input' parameter is an opaque free-form object (additionalProperties, 'Fields to update') with no enumeration of valid user fields, and the description does not compensate for that opacity.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (existing user), and 'by ID' clarifies the addressing mode. It implicitly distinguishes itself from glpi_create_user and glpi_get_user, but never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (glpi_create_user for new users), and no prerequisites such as required permissions on the user record. The agent must infer everything about when this tool is the right call.

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

Deploy Server