Little Green Light MCP Server

update_membership

Idempotent

Update a membership record's dates or level by specifying its ID.

Instructions

Update a membership record 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_membership"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	No
`membership_level_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases, or required permissions). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise but overly sparse. It front-loads the core action but lacks supporting details. It is minimally viable but not well-structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, field constraints, or what happens on success/failure. The annotations mitigate some gaps but not enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'by ID' and ignores the other three parameters (end_date, start_date, membership_level_id). No explanation of parameter semantics, formats, or constraints.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (membership record by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_membership' and 'delete_membership', though 'update_group_membership' is a close sibling without differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no context about prerequisites, constraints, or when to prefer this over other member update tools.

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

Deploy Server