Concrete CMS MCP Server

update-user-by-id

Destructive

Modify an existing user's email, username, language, or profile attributes by specifying their unique ID.

Instructions

Update a user by its ID

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": {
      "userID": "<userID>"
    },
    "name": "update-user-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No
`userID`	Yes	ID of user to update
`language`	No
`username`	No
`attributes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. Critically, it does not disclose partial-update semantics — whether omitted fields like email or language are left untouched or cleared — which is the single most important behavior for a destructive mutation with 5 optional fields.

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 single sentence contains no waste but also no substance; it is under-specified rather than concise. There is nothing front-loaded beyond a restatement of the name.

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?

For a destructive multi-field mutation with a nested attributes object, 80% undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what can be changed, what gets overwritten, or what the response confirms.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only userID is annotated), so the description needed to compensate and does not. It adds no meaning for email, language, username, or the nested attributes object with account_profile_links and private-message flags, leaving the agent to guess at formats and merge behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is word-for-word identical to the title, which is itself a hyphenation of the tool name. It states a verb and resource only through restatement, naming no updatable fields and drawing no distinction from siblings such as update-page-by-id or update-file-by-id. This is effectively a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get-user-by-id, delete-user-by-id, change-user-password, or add-user. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the partial-modification path for an existing user.

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