@instantreply/mcp

update_contact

Destructive

Change a contact's name, email, lead stage, or lead temperature to keep Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger records accurate.

Instructions

Update a contact name or lead stage.

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": "update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`email`	No
`lead_stage`	No
`lead_temperature`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it doesn't explain partial-update semantics, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to fields not mentioned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 5-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits three parameters and all behavioral detail about the update. It is not completely absent, but it leaves major gaps an agent needs filled.

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% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names only 'name' and 'lead stage', leaving 'id', 'email', and 'lead_temperature' completely unexplained, so it compensates only partially.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (contact) plus the two fields it targets, so the purpose is clear. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but the sibling list contains no competing update tool, so the gap is minor.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description doesn't say whether this is a partial patch or full replace, when to call it versus get_contact, or what conditions must hold.

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