action1-mcp-server

Update the current user settings

action1_update_me

Destructive

Update the authenticated user's settings, such as timezone, with a preview-first dry run and explicit confirmation required to apply changes.

Instructions

Update the current user settings. Updates settings for the currently authenticated user.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Request body (schema: UserPayload)
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`value`	No
`dry_run`	No
`would_send`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / body / properties

Added value: +{
+  "timezone": {
+    "description": "Timezone identifier.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / dry_run
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / tool
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / value
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / would_send
```
Added value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the schema carries the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — it doesn't mention that the call is destructive, that it requires an explicit "YES" confirmation, or that it previews by default. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short, but the second sentence is a pure restatement of the first and does not earn its place. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a confirm gate and a dry-run default, the description should at minimum explain the two-step preview/execute flow and what is affected. The output schema and schema descriptions cover the mechanics, but the description leaves the agent to discover the safety protocol only by opening the schema.

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 100% and each parameter (body.timezone, confirm, dry_run) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions no parameters at all — notably it never hints that only timezone is currently exposed in UserPayload — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does state a verb and resource ("Update the current user settings"), so the general intent is inferable. However, the second sentence ("Updates settings for the currently authenticated user") is a paraphrase of the title and adds nothing, and there is no differentiation from siblings such as action1_update_user or action1_get_me, which are the obvious confusion points given a 130+ tool surface.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus action1_update_user (updating other users) or action1_get_me (reading the same resource). Nothing is said about the confirm/dry-run execution protocol that a destructive mutation requires, which is exactly the kind of routing information an agent needs before invoking.

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

Deploy Server