Partially update a SCIM group using PATCH operations to add, remove, or replace members and attributes, with a max batch size limit per request.
Partially update a SCIM group via PATCH operations. Supports adding/removing members subject to a max batch size limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schemas | Yes | ||
| group_id | Yes | ID of the group. | |
| Operations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a max batch size limit and the add/remove member scope, but says nothing about permission requirements, atomicity of PATCH ops, failure behavior, or what a successful response contains 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?
Two tightly written sentences with the operation type front-loaded and zero filler; the constraint (max batch size) is attached to the relevant capability.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, and low schema coverage mean the description should carry more. It omits the required 'schemas' parameter, permission/role requirements, and error or partial-failure semantics that an agent needs before issuing a PATCH.
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 only 33% (group_id documented; schemas undocumented; Operations partially documented). The description adds the batch-size limit and member add/remove context but does not explain the 'schemas' parameter or the semantics of op/path/value beyond what the schema already shows.
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?
States a specific verb+resource+mechanism: 'Partially update a SCIM group via PATCH operations.' This distinguishes it from a full-replacement sibling, though it does not name the siblings (update_group, scim_replace_user-style tools) it differs from.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over update_group, create_group, or other group siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions given. Usage is only implied by the verb 'partially update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.