buchpilot-mcp

update_contact

Update an existing contact's details by providing the contact ID and optional fields like name, first name, or email.

Instructions

Aktualisiert einen bestehenden Kontakt. Updates an existing contact.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Kontakt-ID
`name`	No	Neuer Name
`firstName`	No	Neuer Vorname
`email`	No	Neue E-Mail
`backend`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose idempotency, partial update behavior, authorization requirements, or error handling. A simple 'update' does not convey the full behavioral profile.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences), but the bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence serves a purpose, though merging languages could be cleaner.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or other context that an agent would need for a mutation tool. Sibling tools like 'update_invoice' likely have similar brevity, but the tool itself is underspecified.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Kontakt-ID', 'Neuer Name'). It does not elaborate on the 'backend' parameter which lacks a description.

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 'Aktualisiert einen bestehenden Kontakt. Updates an existing contact.' It uses a specific verb ('updates') and resource ('existing contact'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_contact' and 'get_contact'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when not to use it or suggesting other tools for different use cases.

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

Deploy Server