update_userUpdate an existing Miradore user's name or phone number by email; use it to correct contact details while keeping the email address unchanged.
Update an existing Miradore user's name or phone number (looked up by email; email itself can't be changed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | User email address. | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| middle_name | No | ||
| phone_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the user is looked up by email, email cannot be changed, and only name/phone fields are updateable. It does not state whether omitted fields are preserved or what happens when the user is not found, so it falls short of full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a compact parenthetical constraint. Every part earns its place by stating the action, scope, lookup key, and immutability rule.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple update mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is minimally adequate. However, the low schema coverage leaves the name-field parameters and partial-update semantics underspecified, and the lack of an output schema means the description could say more about the result of a successful or failed update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, with just the email parameter documented. The description compensates partially by clarifying that email is the lookup key and immutable, and that name/phone are the updateable fields, but it does not explain the roles of first_name, last_name, middle_name, or partial-update behavior for omitted parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing Miradore user'), names exactly what can be changed ('name or phone number'), and specifies the lookup key ('by email'). It also distinguishes itself from create/list user tools by emphasizing 'existing' and that email itself cannot be changed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying an existing user's name or phone number and notes that email is immutable. However, it does not explicitly route the agent away from create_user for new users or mention sibling tools for tags/device identifiers, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.