Cloudera Data Visualization MCP Server

edit_user_profile

Update a Cloudera Data Visualization user's profile fields such as name and email by specifying their username and the desired changes.

Instructions

Edit the profile of a CDV user identified by username (e.g. update email, name).

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": {
      "username": "<username>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "edit_user_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes
`body`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies mutation but lacks specifics on side effects, error states, or what happens if the user does not exist. No mention of permissions or idempotency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes an example. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is minimal for an edit operation. It lacks details on scope of changes, potential constraints, and conflict with sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'username' as identifier and gives examples for 'body' (email, name). However, it does not clarify the structure or validation rules for the body object, leaving ambiguity despite the examples.

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 the action (edit), resource (profile of a CDV user), and identification method (by username), with an example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_user' (read) and 'list_users' (list) by specifying a mutation operation.

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?

The description does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like 'update_user', nor does it state prerequisites or conditions for use (e.g., user existence, permissions). No guidance on when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server