gambot_update_userUpdate specific user account fields in Gambot CRM by providing the user ID and only the values to change.
Update user fields — only the provided ones are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| No | |||
| status | No | ||
| userId | Yes | ||
| fullName | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| userName | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| phoneNumber | No | ||
| securityRole | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: only provided fields are changed, signaling PATCH-like semantics. However, it says nothing about required permissions, validation behavior, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key partial-update behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it could still include more behavioral context without becoming bloated.
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?
An 11-parameter update tool with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more context to be reliably invoked. The description only covers patch semantics and leaves field meanings, required constraints, and return behavior entirely unaddressed.
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% with 11 parameters and no parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds general partial-update semantics but does not explain any individual field such as role, status, email, or securityRole. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of per-parameter documentation.
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 states a clear action and resource: 'Update user fields'. It also adds the key partial-update semantic, 'only the provided ones are changed', which distinguishes it from create/delete or full replacement operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the intent is unambiguous enough.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gambot_disable_user, gambot_enable_user, gambot_delete_user, or gambot_create_user. The partial-update phrasing implies it is for field-level updates, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.