Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tie-mcp-server

tie-mcp-server

by taherkaraki
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_preferences

Update user preferences by specifying language and preferred profile ID. Modify settings to tailor the user experience.

Instructions

Update a user's preferences

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_preferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesPreference

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update', implying a mutation, but omits any details about side effects, permissions required, data persistence, or response format. The description is too minimal to adequately disclose behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only one sentence, which is concise but underspecifies the tool. It lacks structure and fails to provide necessary details, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the update does, what the response looks like, or any constraints (e.g., whether both fields are optional or the effect on existing preferences).

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'body' with a description of 'Preference'—a generic label. The tool description adds no further meaning. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description does not clarify the valid values for 'language' or 'preferredProfileId' or how they affect preferences.

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 'Update a user's preferences' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (user's preferences). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_preferences (read) and other update_* tools that target different resources. However, it does not specify which user's preferences are updated (likely the current user), leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 such as update_user (which might also modify preferences) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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