Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_update_user

Update a MODX user's profile fields and active status by ID, letting you correct account details or enable/disable access.

Instructions

Update a user (profile fields, active state).

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": "modx_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
emailNo
activeNo
fullnameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the update is partial (only supplied fields change) or full, whether email changes trigger validation or duplicate checks, whether deactivating a user has side effects, or what permissions are needed. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, even though the underlying content is thin.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell what a successful response looks like or which fields are safely updatable without inspecting the schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters. The parenthetical loosely gestures at email/fullname ("profile fields") and "active", but never explains that id is the required identifier, that active is a numeric flag (0/1), or the expected format for email and fullname. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Update a user" states a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical narrows the scope to profile fields and active state. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like modx_create_user or modx_delete_user, though it does not explicitly separate itself from modx_update_group_member, which also touches users.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as modx_update_group_member (group membership) or modx_update_user_group (the group itself). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication that an existing user id is required.

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