Skip to main content
Glama
crunchtools

MCP WorkBoard CrunchTools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Workboard Update User Tool

workboard_update_user_tool

Update an existing WorkBoard user's profile fields, including first name, last name, email, and designation, using the required user ID.

Instructions

Update an existing WorkBoard user.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoUser's email address (optional)
user_idYesUser ID (positive integer)
last_nameNoUser's last name (optional)
first_nameNoUser's first name (optional)
designationNoUser's job title or designation (optional)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_id / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.7.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / designation / description
      Added value: +"User's job title or designation (optional)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Added value: +"User's email address (optional)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / first_name / description
      Added value: +"User's first name (optional)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / last_name / description
      Added value: +"User's last name (optional)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_id / description
      Added value: +"User ID (positive integer)"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about partial versus full updates, whether omitted optional fields are cleared, permission requirements, or reversibility. 'Existing' is the only hint that the target must already exist.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified rather than truly concise given the tool has five parameters and no annotations to fall back on.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description should clarify what can be changed and any constraints; it does none of that. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers the parameters, but the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (email, user_id, last_name, first_name, designation) are already documented in the schema with types and optionality. The description adds no field-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing WorkBoard user), which is unambiguous and matches the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related create_user/get_user siblings beyond the obvious verb change.

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 tool versus workboard_create_user_tool or workboard_get_user_tool, nor any stated preconditions (user must already exist, required permissions). The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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