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

@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official
by vitrionbv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update-person

Update a sales person's contact details, including name, email, phone, and organization assignment, to keep CRM records accurate.

Instructions

Update a sales person (PUT /api/public/sales/people/{id}). Scope: sales: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-person"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPerson id.
nameNoPerson name.
emailNoEmail address.
phoneNoPhone number.
organizationIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses the HTTP method and required auth scope (sales:write), which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a partial or full replacement, what happens with omitted fields, or any side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the action, endpoint, and scope. Every element earns its place and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified: it lacks return behavior, error/prerequisite context, and any indication of partial vs full update semantics. Given the richer sibling set, an agent would need additional inference.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter details beyond the id in the endpoint, and it does not clarify the undocumented organizationId, but the high schema coverage supports a baseline 3.

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') and resource ('a sales person'), plus the HTTP method and path, which distinguishes it from create-person, get-person, and list-people. The scope qualifier adds clarity about the intended 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it doesn't mention that an existing person id is required, that create-person is for new records, or that get-person/list-people are for reads. The only implication is the verb 'Update'.

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