iSuite Operations MCP Server

update_user

Update an existing iSuite user's profile or settings including email, full name, department, and manager.

Instructions

Update an existing iSuite user's profile or settings.

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`userId`	Yes	The user's unique ID or username.
`email`	No	New email address.
`fullName`	No	New full display name.
`department`	No	New department or business unit.
`manager`	No	Manager's user ID or username.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, what permissions are required, or if changes are reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It conveys the core purpose without extra details. It could be considered a minimum viable description but not well-structured.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is too sparse. It should explain behavior like whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, timeout implications, or validation rules. The schema covers parameter descriptions but the tool's overall behavior is under-described.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond grouping them under 'profile or settings', which provides minimal extra context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing iSuite user's profile or settings'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user, delete_user, enable_user, etc., by focusing on modification. However, 'profile or settings' is somewhat vague but acceptable.

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 vs alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., enable_user, reset_user_password), it would be helpful to specify that this is for updating general profile fields, not for actions like password reset or role assignment.

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