Partially update a user in DefectDojo by ID to change first name, last name, email, or active status.
Update a user (partial update).
Args: user_id: The user ID first_name: New first name last_name: New last name email: New email is_active: Set active status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. The '(partial update)' note is valuable, implying unprovided fields are left unchanged, but there is no mention of permission requirements, side effects (e.g., email re-verification), reversibility, or failure behavior for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact Args list. It is appropriately sized with minimal waste, though the parameter descriptions are near-redundant with their names.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the partial-update note clarifies mutation scope. Still, as an unannotated mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, it omits permission and side-effect context an agent would need to call it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does list all five parameters with brief meanings (first_name, last_name, email, is_active, user_id). However, the glosses are terse tautologies of the parameter names and add little format or constraint detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 ('a user'), and the '(partial update)' qualifier adds useful precision. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_user and delete_user by name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them in text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 alternatives (get_user, create_user, delete_user), nor any prerequisites such as required permissions. Only the implicit 'partial update' semantics hint at appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.