Skip to main content
Glama
SShadowS

Zendesk MCP Server

by SShadowS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

update_user

Update existing Zendesk user records by changing only specified fields; omitted values remain unchanged. Detach an organization with null or clear text fields with empty strings.

Instructions

Update an existing user. Pass only the fields you want to change; omitted fields are preserved. Use get_user first to confirm the ID and current state. Pass organization_id: null to detach the user from their current organization. String fields can be cleared by passing an empty string.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUser ID to update
nameNoUpdated user's name
roleNoUpdated user's role
tagsNoUpdated tags for the user
emailNoUpdated email address
notesNoUpdated notes about the user
phoneNoUpdated phone number
organization_idNoUpdated organization ID. Pass null to detach the user from their current organization.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / organization_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / organization_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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. It does well by revealing that omitted fields are preserved, that organization_id can be detached via null, and that strings can be cleared with empty strings. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on invalid IDs, or whether changes take effect immediately — minor gaps given the thoroughness elsewhere.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the partial-update semantics, the prerequisite call, and the two special-value conventions. Information is front-loaded with the verb and resource first, and no filler or redundancy exists.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical knowledge an agent needs: how to invoke, what values are safe, and how to express clearing and detachment. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but those are less essential when the update semantics are so well explained.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds value by explaining the partial-update behavior and the null/empty-string conventions, which the schema only partially hints at (organization_id description does mention null). Since the schema carries most parameter meaning, a baseline 3 is appropriate with a slight bump from the usage conventions, but the description doesn't need to repeat every field.

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 opens with 'Update an existing user' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_user, get_user, and delete_user. It also conveys partial-update semantics, which is core to what makes this tool different from a full replacement.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs the agent to call get_user first to confirm the ID and current state — a clear when-to-use directive and prerequisite. It also explains the two special-purpose values (null for detachment, empty string for clearing string fields), leaving no ambiguity about how to signal these intents.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools