grubhub-mcp

update_profile

Change your name and phone number associated with your Grubhub profile.

Instructions

update user profile information. (AUTH'D)

Args: first_name: New first name last_name: New last name phone: New phone number

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`first_name`	No
`last_name`	No
`phone`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '(AUTH'D)' indicating authentication, but does not state whether the update is partial (only provided fields) or full replacement, what validation occurs, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a list of parameters with short explanations. It is front-loaded with the action and list structure. Every sentence is necessary and no waste.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that all fields are optional and updates are partial, nor does it refer to the output schema for return value details. More context on usage semantics is needed.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief definitions ('New first name' etc.) which clarify each parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type/null info. However, it lacks constraints like formatting, length, or allowed values, leaving gaps.

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 'update user profile information' and lists specific fields (first_name, last_name, phone). No sibling tool offers the same functionality (e.g., get_profile is read-only, change_password is for password). The verb and resource are precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that password changes should use 'change_password' or that address updates require 'add_address'. The description lacks any when-not-to-use or context-based recommendations.

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