Create a GetCourse user or update an existing profile using email and optional fields. Add the user to a group or attach a deal offer to trigger an order.
Создание или обновление пользователя в GetCourse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Город | |
| Yes | Email пользователя | ||
| phone | No | Телефон | |
| last_name | No | Фамилия | |
| first_name | No | Имя | |
| group_name | No | Название группы для добавления | |
| deal_offer_code | No | Код предложения для создания заказа |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses that the operation can both create and update a user, but it does not state the upsert key, side effects, required permissions, or what happens on conflict. This is inadequate for a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and target system.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a 7-parameter write operation with no annotations or output schema. Missing context includes the identity/email key for update behavior, when to prefer this over get_users/get_deals, and expected response or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the action, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact operation (create or update) and resource (user in GetCourse), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The sibling tools are read-oriented (get_users, get_deals), so this write/upsert tool is conceptually distinct without needing extra wording.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling get_users/get_deals, nor any conditions or exclusions. The only implied context is 'GetCourse', which is not enough to help an agent decide between creating/updating and reading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.