Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

people.people.batchUpdateContacts

Update multiple Google Contacts in one request and receive a map of resource names to updated person responses. Use for bulk edits to names, emails, or phone numbers.

Instructions

Update a batch of contacts and return a map of resource names to PersonResponses for the updated contacts. Mutate requests for the same user should be sent sequentially to avoid increased latency and failures [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON BatchUpdateContactsRequest object accepting contacts, readMask, sources, updateMask; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: batchCreateContacts, batchDeleteContacts, createContact, deleteContact, deleteContactPhoto, get, getBatchGet, listDirectoryPeople, searchContacts, searchDirectoryPeople, updateContact, updateContactPhoto.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON BatchUpdateContactsRequest object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type BatchUpdateContactsRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
updateResultNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description
      Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON BatchUpdateContactsRequest object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type BatchUpdateContactsRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "contacts": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "readMask": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sources": {
+      "items": {
+        "enum": [
+          "READ_SOURCE_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED",
+          "READ_SOURCE_TYPE_PROFILE",
+          "READ_SOURCE_TYPE_CONTACT",
+          "READ_SOURCE_TYPE_DOMAIN_CONTACT",
+          "READ_SOURCE_TYPE_OTHER_CONTACT"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "updateMask": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "updateResult": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that this is an HTTP POST mutation, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and the sequential-execution constraint. It doesn't cover auth scopes or partial-failure semantics for a batch operation, which is the main remaining 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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the sequencing warning is well placed, but the long sibling enumeration and the bracketed '[HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change' clause pad the definition. The core actionable content is roughly half the text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, and the description still summarizes the return value as a map of resource names to PersonResponses, which is useful orientation. Combined with mutation and readonly-profile warnings, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only batch partial-failure behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, params, dry_run, body_file and the request_body fields. The description restates the body fields (contacts, readMask, sources, updateMask) and the params-vs-body_file routing, which is helpful repetition but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource scope ('Update a batch of contacts') plus the return shape (map of resource names to PersonResponses). The sibling list plus the explicit mention of batchCreateContacts/batchDeleteContacts/updateContact makes the batch-update-vs-single-update distinction unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete operational rule: mutate requests for the same user must be sent sequentially to avoid latency and failures. It also enumerates sibling tools over the same resource, giving the agent routing awareness. It stops short of saying explicitly when to prefer this over updateContact or batchCreateContacts.

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