Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update a user

update_user
DestructiveIdempotent

Modify a Wiki.js user's profile fields or group assignments. Provide the user ID and new details; note that groups replace all current memberships.

Instructions

Changes an account’s details or its group membership. The groups list replaces the existing one rather than adding to it — use assign_user_to_group for a single addition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
emailNoEmail address, which is also the login for local accounts.
groupsNoReplaces the whole group list.
user_idYesNumeric Wiki.js id.
locationNo
job_titleNo
confirm_tokenNoToken from this tool’s previous, unconfirmed call. Omit it to receive one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / groups / items / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_id / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower but the description still adds real context: the disclosure that the groups list 'replaces the existing one rather than adding to it' explains what a destructive call does to existing membership. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, with no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the critical behavioral warning placed second. The warning sentence earns its place by disclosing the replacement gotcha and naming the alternative tool in a single clause; there is no filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the main action, the principal harmful gotcha (group replacement), and sibling routing; annotations carry the safety profile, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The one notable omission is the two-step confirmation workflow behind confirm_token, which the schema description only hints at ('Token from this tool's previous, unconfirmed call'). This leaves a small but real gap for an agent that must complete an unconfirmed update.

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 57%, with 4 of 7 parameters (email, groups, user_id, confirm_token) already documented in the schema and the remaining three (name, location, job_title) being self-explanatory. The description restates the most subtle parameter's semantics (groups replace-not-add) at tool level, which helps, but it adds no format or interaction detail for the undocumented parameters. It partially compensates for the coverage gap without systematically explaining parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('an account's details or its group membership'), which accurately maps to the schema's user_id/name/email/groups fields. The second sentence explicitly names the sibling assign_user_to_group, so an agent can distinguish update_user from the sibling without inspecting either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context: use when changing account details or replacing group membership. It provides an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('use assign_user_to_group for a single addition'), which is concrete and actionable. It could additionally preempt related siblings like create_user/delete_user, but the one exclusion it gives is sufficient for the most common source of confusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools