mcp-sac-tools

by pmankineni

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

sac_update_user

Update existing user attributes such as email, name, and active status in SAP Analytics Cloud using the SCIM user ID.

Instructions

Update an existing user's attributes.

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": "sac_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No
`active`	No
`userId`	Yes	The SCIM user ID
`givenName`	No
`familyName`	No
`displayName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only states 'update' but does not disclose whether it performs a partial or full update, required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, which is efficient. However, it is overly minimal, sacrificing useful context for brevity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context for correct usage, such as update behavior, required fields, or return values.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is only 17% (only userId has a description), yet the description does not clarify any other parameter. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the action (update), resource (existing user), and scope (attributes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, and delete, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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