Whatify MCP Server

whatify_update_contact

Update an existing contact's details such as name, email, status, tags, and custom attributes.

Instructions

Update an existing contact.

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": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>"
    },
    "name": "whatify_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`tags`	No
`email`	No
`status`	No
`contact_id`	Yes
`custom_attributes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states the tool updates an existing contact (mutation), but gives no details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response format, leaving agent uninformed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single vague sentence, which is too brief to be effective. While it is concise, the lack of structure and missing details make it less useful than a longer, well-organized description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 6 parameters, including nested objects and an enum, and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to provide essential context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names (e.g., 'name', 'tags', 'email', 'status', 'custom_attributes'). No guidance on usage, constraints, or relationships among 6 parameters.

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 'Update an existing contact' clearly states the action and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling 'create_contact' by indicating an existing contact is modified. However, it lacks specificity on which attributes are updatable, limiting clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_contact' or other update tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given.

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

Deploy Server