Skip to main content
Glama
devyhan

ms-graph-mcp

by devyhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a contact

contacts_update
Idempotent

Update personal contact fields in Microsoft 365. Specify id and fields to change; emailAddresses replaces all addresses, so include existing ones to keep.

Instructions

Updates the given fields of one personal contact and returns the stored result. Omitted fields are left alone, but emailAddresses is a collection: supplying it REPLACES every address on the contact, so read the contact first and resend the ones to keep. There is no optimistic-concurrency check here — a concurrent edit from Outlook is silently overwritten. At least one field besides id is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe contact id, as returned by contacts_list or contacts_search. This is the long opaque Outlook item id, not an email address or display name.
surnameNoThe contact's last name.
jobTitleNoJob title at that organisation.
givenNameNoThe contact's first name.
companyNameNoEmployer or organisation.
displayNameNoThe name Outlook files the contact under. Outlook derives it from the given and surname when it has never been set explicitly; setting it here stops that.
mobilePhoneNoMobile phone number, as free text.
emailAddressesNoReplacement list of up to 3 email addresses. This REPLACES every existing address rather than adding to them, so include the ones to keep. Read the contact first if unsure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing patch semantics (omitted fields left alone), the replacement behavior of emailAddresses, and the lack of optimistic concurrency checking with silent overwrites. These are critical behavioral traits that the annotations alone do not convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the main purpose, the critical emailAddresses replacement warning, and the concurrency caveat. It is front-loaded and free of redundant phrasing.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately notes that it returns the stored result and covers the most important behavioral pitfalls. It does not mention error cases (e.g., contact not found) or provide details about the return structure, but given the schema richness and clear warnings, it is substantially complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a rich description. The overall description adds collective semantic value: 'Omitted fields are left alone' and 'At least one field besides id is required' are not stated in the schema and provide crucial update semantics beyond the individual property descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('one personal contact'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contacts_create, contacts_delete, contacts_get, and contacts_list by focusing on partial modification of existing contacts.

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?

The description gives clear usage context, including the requirement that at least one field besides id be provided, and warns about emailAddresses replacement behavior. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but the update semantics are evident from the description and 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