Skip to main content
Glama
marco-looy

Pega DX MCP Server

by marco-looy

update_participant

Update participant contact, personal, or other properties in a Pega case by case ID and participant ID, with automatic eTag retrieval for optimistic locking.

Instructions

Update participant details in a Pega case by case ID and participant ID. If no eTag is provided, automatically fetches the latest eTag from the case for seamless operation. Allows updating participant information such as contact details, personal information, and other properties. Requires an eTag value for optimistic locking and returns updated participant details with optional UI resources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIDYesCase ID. Example: "MYORG-APP-WORK C-1001". Complete identifier including spaces."ON6E5R-DIYRecipe-Work-RecipeCollection R-1008". a complete case identifier including spaces and special characters.
participantIDYesParticipant ID to update. This identifies the specific participant within the case whose information will be modified.
eTagNoOptional. Auto-fetched if omitted. For faster execution, use eTag from previous response.
contentNoOptional participant data object with properties to update. Can include personal information like pyFirstName, pyLastName, pyEmail1, pyPhoneNumber, etc. Only provided properties will be updated - others remain unchanged.
pageInstructionsNoOptional list of page-related operations for embedded pages, page lists, or page groups. Required for setting embedded page references.
viewTypeNoType of view data to return after update. "form" returns form UI metadata in uiResources object for display purposes, "none" returns no UI resources. Default: "form".form
sessionCredentialsNoOptional session-specific credentials. If not provided, uses environment variables. Supports two authentication modes: (1) OAuth mode - provide baseUrl, clientId, and clientSecret, or (2) Token mode - provide baseUrl and accessToken.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears the burden. It discloses optimistic locking via eTag, partial updates (only provided properties changed), and return of updated details with UI resources. However, it lacks details on side effects, concurrency guarantees, or access requirements.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, eTag behavior, updateable fields, and requirement/return. No filler, well front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has 7 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (update, eTag, partial updates, pageInstructions, return with UI). It omits error handling and response structure details, but remains fairly complete for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value beyond schema: explains eTag auto-fetch, partial update behavior for content, and the purpose of pageInstructions usage. This elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 uses specific verb 'Update' and resource 'participant details in a Pega case', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_case_participant and delete_participant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the eTag auto-fetch behavior for convenience, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or mention restrictions like required permissions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/marco-looy/pega-dx-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server