nc-mcp-server

update_contact

Idempotent

Update an existing contact by changing only the provided fields, including name, email, phone, or organization. Requires the contact's ETag to prevent conflicting updates.

Instructions

Update an existing contact. Only provided fields are changed.

Pass an empty string to clear a scalar field (e.g. note=""). For emails/phones, pass [] to remove all. Do not provide both email and emails (or phone and phones).

Requires the contact's current etag (from get_contacts or get_contact) to prevent conflicting updates.

Args: uid: The contact UID to update. etag: Current ETag for conflict detection. Get from get_contacts/get_contact. full_name: New full display name. given_name: New first name. family_name: New last name. email: Set a single email (replaces all, TYPE=WORK). Pass "" to remove all. phone: Set a single phone (replaces all, TYPE=CELL). Pass "" to remove all. emails: Array of {"value","type"} to replace all emails. Pass [] to clear. phones: Array of {"value","type"} to replace all phones. Pass [] to clear. organization: New organization. Pass "" to remove. title: New job title. Pass "" to remove. note: New note. Pass "" to remove. book_id: Address book ID (default "contacts").

Returns: JSON with the updated contact object.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`uid`	Yes
`etag`	Yes
`note`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	No
`title`	No
`emails`	No
`phones`	No
`book_id`	No	contacts
`full_name`	No
`given_name`	No
`family_name`	No
`organization`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, the annotations only gesture at mutability; the description supplies the important behavioral details: partial updates, empty-string clearing for scalar fields, [] clearing for emails/phones, and etag-based conflict prevention. It also explicitly warns against providing both singular and plural forms, which is valuable beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 well-organized: overview, clearing rules, conflict-detection requirement, then an Args list. It is slightly redundant because the etag requirement appears both in the prose and again under the etag arg, but the extra length is justified by the high parameter count.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with conflict-detection requirements, the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, clearing behavior, mutual-exclusion constraints, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the output schema means the return value needs no further elaboration.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description documents every parameter in the Args section, including the special semantics of email vs emails, phone vs phones, and the default for book_id. This fully compensates for the bare input schema and adds details such as TYPE=WORK / TYPE=CELL and the shape of the array items.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing contact', clearly distinguishing this from the sibling create/delete/get contact tools. It also states the key patch semantics ('Only provided fields are changed'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes clear usage context: this is for modifying an existing contact, and it mandates obtaining the current etag from get_contacts or get_contact first. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives like create_contact or delete_contact, but the 'existing contact' framing plus the etag prerequisite is enough to route an agent correctly.

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

Deploy Server