gryzzly-mcp

update_customer

Idempotent

Change an existing customer by name or ID: rename, activate/deactivate, or replace managers; omitted fields are kept.

Instructions

Change an existing customer, found by name or id: rename it, mark it active or inactive, or replace its managers (the list you pass replaces the current one). Fields you omit are kept; Gryzzly requires a name on every update, so the current one is resent. Use delete_customer to remove a customer instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	A new name. Gryzzly requires one on every update; the current one is sent when this is absent.
`customer`	Yes	The customer to change, by name or id.
`managers`	No	The managers, by name, email or id. Replaces the current list.
`is_active`	No	Whether the customer is active.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The customer's identifier.
`name`	No	The customer's name.
`managers`	No	The users managing this customer.
`is_active`	No	Whether the customer is active.
`created_at`	No	When the customer was created.
`updated_at`	No	When the customer was last updated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: the managers list fully replaces the current list, omitted fields are preserved (merge semantics), and Gryzzly's quirk of requiring a name means the current one is resent. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action and what it changes, then appends the two key behavioral caveats and the sibling routing. Each sentence earns its place, though the clause about managers replacing the current list is slightly dense in the opening sentence.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining critical context (merge behavior, managers replacement, required-name workaround, delete alternative), leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the managers replacement semantics and the name requirement, both already present in the schema, adding little param-level meaning beyond it.

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 (change/update) and resource (existing customer), and enumerates exactly what can change: rename, active status, and manager replacement. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_customer for removal, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 clear context: use it to change an existing customer found by name or id, and explicitly routes removal to delete_customer. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer other update_* siblings or any preconditions beyond the required name, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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