update_users_by_itemUpdate User
Update User
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| admin | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| group | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| advanced | No | ||
| fullName | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| canInvite | No | ||
| canManage | No | ||
| household | No | ||
| authMethod | No | ||
| canOrganize | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| showAnnouncements | No | ||
| canManageHousehold | No | ||
| lastReadAnnouncement | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.29.0Input schema / properties / authMethod / enumPrevious value: -[
- "Mealie",
- "LDAP",
- "OIDC"
-]New value: +[
+ "Mealie",
+ "LDAP",
+ "OIDC",
+ "ReverseProxy"
+]v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no description content, the agent knows nothing beyond the word "Update": not what fields get overwritten, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, whether admin/group changes require elevated permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Two words are not concise so much as absent; the definition is drastically under-sized relative to a 17-parameter mutation tool. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.
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?
A 17-parameter write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions is completely under-specified. An agent would be guessing at nearly every field's effect.
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% across 17 parameters, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied, and it says nothing. The distinction between the required item_id and the optional id, the meaning of canManage vs canManageHousehold, or the authMethod enum values are all left undocumented.
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 is the two-word phrase "Update User", which merely restates the tool name and title. It does not say what a user record is here, what identifies the record (item_id), or how it differs from the sibling update_admin_users_by_item.
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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or when to prefer update_admin_users_by_item or update_users_password over this tool. Usage must be guessed entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.