Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_update_user

Update user details in CheckMK monitoring by modifying email, roles, full name, or contact group assignments for a specified username.

Instructions

📝 Update user - Modify user properties

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoEmail address
rolesNoUser roles
fullnameNoFull name
usernameYesUsername
contactgroupsNoContact groups to assign user to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description indicates a mutation ('update', 'modify') but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or whether changes are immediately applied or require activation. With no annotations, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary elaboration. The emoji and redundant 'Modify user properties' add slight fluff, but overall it is concise and structured clearly.

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?

The description lacks critical context such as expected behavior when updating non-existent users, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to existing fields, or what the tool returns. No output schema is provided, so the agent cannot anticipate the result of the operation.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions in the schema, but they are minimal (e.g., 'Username', 'Email address'). No constraints, formats, relationships, or guidance on which fields are optional versus required beyond the required 'username' are provided. Schema coverage is complete but shallow.

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 tool updates a user and modifies user properties, which distinguishes it from user creation and deletion. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or clarify the exact scope beyond 'properties'.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_user or delete_user. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update' and the resource name, but no conditions or context are provided.

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