Skip to main content
Glama
rollecode

seerr-mcp

by rollecode

update_user_by_user_id

Idempotent

Update user details by user ID using a request payload. Modify settings or profile information for a specific user in Overseerr or Jellyseerr.

Instructions

Update a user by user ID.

PUT /api/v1/user/{userId}

Args: user_id: Path parameter. body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
user_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds the HTTP method and the body-discovery requirement, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as permissions or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, the endpoint, then parameter roles. Every line contributes useful information without redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the tool: it identifies the endpoint, parameter roles, and where to discover body fields. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, which prevents a higher score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that user_id is a path parameter and body is the request payload. However, it defers actual field semantics to external endpoints rather than providing them directly, leaving the body structure unspecified.

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 action ('Update a user') and identifies the target by user ID, which aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'update_user', though 'by user ID' provides some differentiation.

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?

It gives practical guidance: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected body fields. This tells the agent how to construct a valid request, though it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_user.

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