Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webex-mcp

webex-mcp

by yuryev89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

webex_update_team

Update a Webex team's name or description by specifying its team ID. Use it to keep team details accurate without recreating the team.

Instructions

Update a team.

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>"
    },
    "name": "webex_update_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name
teamIdYesTeam ID
descriptionNoNew description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a mutation tool it says nothing about required permissions, whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Three words are brief, but this is under-specification rather than concision — there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load. Nothing is wasted, but almost nothing is conveyed.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a teamId-keyed update requires far more context than a single tautological sentence. An agent cannot determine permissions, partial-update semantics, or expected response from this definition.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents name, teamId, and description, and the baseline of 3 applies. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it does not clarify that only supplied fields are changed, which would be genuinely useful for a partial-update operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Update a team." restates the tool name (webex_update_team) without adding specificity about what fields are updated or what an update means. It does not distinguish this tool from the several other update_* siblings such as webex_update_team_membership or webex_update_space.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. An agent gets no signal about whether this is for renaming a team versus changing membership, which is exactly the confusion the sibling set invites.

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