Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ActiveCampaign MCP

ActiveCampaign MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_a_custom_field_value_for_contact

Idempotent

Update a contact's custom field value by specifying the field value ID, contact ID, field ID, and new value.

Instructions

🟡 WRITE · updates data · Field Values · PUT /fieldValues/{id}

Update a custom field value for contact

Modifies an existing record in place. Idempotent.

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_a_custom_field_value_for_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the fieldValue to update
bodyNoRequest body (application/json).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Modifies an existing record in place. Idempotent.' which reinforces idempotency and adds 'in place' context, but this is minimal extra value beyond annotations.

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 short and includes the HTTP method upfront, but the first line with emojis and 'WRITE' is somewhat redundant with annotations. Still, it efficiently communicates the core action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple update tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values or the effect of 'useDefaults'. It covers the essential, but more context would help the agent.

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 description adds no additional parameter explanation. The schema itself describes parameters well. Baseline of 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 states the verb 'Update' and resource 'custom field value for contact', and the annotation title reinforces this. While the name alone distinguishes from sibling 'update_a_custom_field_value', the description does not explicitly differentiate, so it loses some points.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'update_a_custom_field_value' or similar update tools. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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