Partially update a SCIM user by applying PATCH operations to add, remove, or replace attributes in order, with version headers for optimistic locking.
Partially update a SCIM user via PATCH operations (add, remove, replace). Operations are executed in order. Supports optimistic locking via version headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schemas | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ID of the user. | |
| Operations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavior: operations run in order and optimistic locking is available via version headers. However, it also claims 'remove' is supported while the Operations.op enum only permits 'add' and 'replace', a description-vs-schema mismatch, and it says nothing about auth requirements or failure semantics.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the update mechanism leads and supporting semantics follow. Slightly terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers ordering and concurrency but omits auth/permission needs, error behavior, and any detail on the required schemas parameter. It is adequate but leaves an agent with real gaps before calling it.
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%, so the description should compensate, and it partly does by explaining the add/replace/remove operations and their ordering. It adds nothing about the required 'schemas' or 'user_id' parameters, and its 'remove' mention conflicts with the enum, so it does not fully close the gap.
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 (partially update), resource (SCIM user) and mechanism (PATCH operations). The word 'partially' implicitly separates it from the sibling scim_replace_user, though it never names that sibling or scim_update_group to make the routing explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer PATCH-style partial edits are the intent, but there is no statement of when to choose this over scim_replace_user or update_user, nor any prerequisite about which user IDs are valid or what state the user must be in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.