Little Green Light MCP Server

update_email_address

Idempotent

Modify an existing email address record by providing the Email ID and updating fields such as address, email type, or primary status.

Instructions

Update an existing email address record by Email 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_email_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Email ID
`address`	No
`email_type`	No
`is_primary`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, which are consistent with 'Update'. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as how unspecified fields are handled or potential side effects.

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 concise sentence of 8 words with no redundant information. It is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, four parameters with limited schema descriptions, and a simple mutation operation, the description omits important details like update semantics (e.g., whether partial updates are supported) and validation rules. It is insufficient for an agent to use reliably without additional context.

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?

Only the 'id' parameter is described in the schema (25% coverage). The tool description does not explain the other three parameters ('address', 'email_type', 'is_primary'), leaving their purpose ambiguous. The description should compensate for low schema coverage but does not.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('email address record'), and the identifier ('by Email ID'). It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like create_email_address and delete_email_address.

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 implies usage when an existing email address record needs modification, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use. The context is only implicit.

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

Deploy Server