Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@vitrion/zentria-mcp

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update-contact

Update customer contact details by ID. Modify name, email, phone, or primary status to keep CRM records accurate.

Instructions

Update a customer contact (PUT /api/public/contacts/{id}). Scope: customers:write.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesContact id.
nameNo
emailNo
phoneNo
isPrimaryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals the HTTP method and auth scope. It does not explain whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, whether null values clear fields, or what response to expect.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler, efficiently stating the action, endpoint, and scope. It is concise but so terse that it leaves out substantive details an agent needs.

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 five parameters, one required field, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to clarify required payload shape, update semantics, edge cases, or return value, leaving an agent unable to reliably construct a correct request.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter beyond the id. The purpose of name, email, phone, and isPrimary, and how they behave during an update, are entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('customer contact'), and the exact endpoint (PUT /api/public/contacts/{id}). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get-contact or create-customer-contact by naming both the resource and the HTTP operation.

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?

The description mentions an authorization scope ('customers:write') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create-customer-contact or get-contact. It does not state any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites for selecting this tool.

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