Skip to main content
Glama
daanno

Simplicate MCP Server

by daanno

update_person

Modify person records in Simplicate CRM by providing person ID and updated data fields to maintain accurate contact information.

Instructions

Update a person

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
person_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'update_person': validates person_id and data, calls SimplicateServiceExtended.updatePerson, and returns JSON response.
    case 'update_person': {
      if (!toolArgs.person_id || !toolArgs.data) throw new Error('person_id and data required');
      const data = await this.simplicateService.updatePerson(toolArgs.person_id, toolArgs.data);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • Tool registration in ListTools handler: defines name, description, and input schema for 'update_person'.
    {
      name: 'update_person',
      description: 'Update a person',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          person_id: { type: 'string' },
          data: { type: 'object' },
        },
        required: ['person_id', 'data'],
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the structure of a SimplicatePerson used for update_person data.
    export interface SimplicatePerson {
      id: string;
      first_name: string;
      family_name: string;
      email?: string;
      phone?: string;
      organization?: { id: string; name: string };
    }
  • Core implementation: makes PUT request to Simplicate CRM API endpoint `/crm/person/{personId}` to update person data.
    async updatePerson(personId: string, data: Partial<SimplicatePerson>): Promise<SimplicatePerson> {
      const response = await this.client.put(`/crm/person/${personId}`, data);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic 'update' action. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data not included in the update, whether changes are reversible, or what the expected response format might be. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical transparency gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of severe under-specification. While technically 'front-loaded' (the entire description is the first and only phrase), it fails to provide the necessary information density. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters including nested objects), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, how to use it, what it requires, or what it returns. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to properly invoke the tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides zero information about what 'person_id' should contain or what the 'data' object structure should be. With 2 required parameters and nested objects, the agent has no guidance on how to properly format inputs for this tool.

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 'Update a person' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what aspects of a person can be updated, what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'update_organization' or 'update_project'. The description fails to provide the specific verb+resource combination needed for clear understanding.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing person ID), when this should be used instead of create_person, or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list. The agent receives zero contextual direction for tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daanno/simplicate-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server