Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
getcourse-mcp

getcourse-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gc_update_user

Update user profile fields (name, phone, city, comment) except email. Use dryRun to preview changes without saving.

Instructions

Изменить поля профиля на карточке (имя/фамилия/телефон/город/комментарий). Email вне области. dryRun — без сохранения.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "gc_update_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoГород.
emailYesEmail пользователя.
phoneNoТелефон.
dryRunNoЗаполнить поля без сохранения.
commentNoКомментарий.
lastNameNoФамилия.
firstNameNoИмя.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 discloses that the tool modifies fields and offers a dry run option, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. The constraint about email is useful but minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The most important information (verb, fields, constraint) is front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the main action and dryRun, but does not mention return values, idempotency, or error behavior. It covers the immediate need but leaves gaps for a complex tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the modifiable fields and explaining that email is the identifier (not modifiable), and clarifying the dryRun parameter's purpose. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 'change' and the resource 'profile fields on the card', listing the specific fields. It also notes that email is out of scope, which helps clarify purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the context makes it clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating user profile fields and mentions dryRun for testing without saving, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond email.

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