JobNimbus MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jn_update_contact

Update contact details in JobNimbus by specifying the contact ID and modifying fields such as name, email, phone, address, status, tags, or custom fields.

Instructions

Update a contact in JobNimbus.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jnid": "<jnid>"
    },
    "name": "jn_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No
`city`	No
`jnid`	Yes	Contact jnid to update
`tags`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	No
`country`	No
`last_name`	No
`first_name`	No
`state_text`	No
`status_name`	No
`display_name`	No
`mobile_phone`	No
`address_line1`	No
`custom_fields_json`	No	JSON string of custom field key-value pairs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Update a contact' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it performs a full replacement or partial update, what fields are overwritten, if there are merge semantics, or any side effects. No annotations exist to compensate.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks essential details, making it minimally viable.

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?

With 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter behavior, or how the update operation works beyond the verb.

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?

Schema coverage is only 13% (only jnid and custom_fields_json have descriptions). The tool description adds no information about the other 13 parameters, leaving them completely undocumented for the agent.

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 clearly states 'Update a contact in JobNimbus,' which includes a specific verb (update), resource (contact), and platform (JobNimbus). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jn_create_contact (create) and jn_get_contact (read).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., jn_create_contact, jn_update_job). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using it effectively.

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