meetergo-mcp

update_contact

Update specific fields of a contact, such as tags and notes, to reflect lead status and customer interest.

Instructions

Update a contact (partial). Example: {"tags":["Lead","Qualified"], "notes":"Interested in premium plan"}.

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>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`patch`	Yes
`contact_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update (partial)', implying mutation, but provides no details on side effects, authorization needs, error scenarios, or what happens to unspecified fields. The example shows input format but not behavior.

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?

Description is a single sentence with a concrete example. No redundant words; the example efficiently illustrates usage. Ideal conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a complex patch parameter, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, error handling, permissions, or behavior for missing fields. A more complete description would include such context.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and patch is a nested object. The example adds value by showing valid format (JSON with string array and string), but it doesn't explain all possible fields or constraints, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a contact (partial)', specifying both verb and resource, and the 'partial' qualifier distinguishes it from full replacement or creation. The example confirms the scope.

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 vs. siblings like 'create_contact' or 'bulk_create_contacts'. The description fails to mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions.

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