Skip to main content
Glama

Update Agent Profile

update_agent_profile
Idempotent

Update your profile. All fields are optional — only provide the fields you want to change. Use get_agent_profile first to see current values. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoContact email address
apiKeyYesYour API key (m2m_...)
agentNameNoNew agent display name
agentTypeNoAgent type (e.g. development, production, enterprise)
websiteUrlNoWebsite URL
descriptionNoNew description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that authentication is required and that the update is partial ('only provide the fields you want to change'), which implies merge semantics beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, field behavior, precondition, and authentication. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the schema fully documents all parameters and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of the return value, but with no output schema this is not critical. The guidance to read first and the partial-update semantics are sufficient for confident invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context that all fields are optional and only specified fields are updated, clarifying the patch-like behavior beyond the schema's nullable/default annotations.

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?

The description clearly states 'Update your profile' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from read-only tools like get_agent_profile and creation tools like register_agent. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use get_agent_profile first to see current values' and clarifies that all fields are optional, so only changed fields should be provided. This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing instructions relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping pairs like fund_wallet and checkout_wallet_deposit (both create checkout URLs for wallet top-up) and cancel_physical_task vs cancel_task_with_settlement. Detailed descriptions and cross-references help, but the sheer number of similar actions creates misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_*, list_*, approve_*). Minor deviations include inconsistent use of 'task' vs 'physical_task' in names and the awkward 'checkout_wallet_deposit', but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

54 tools is excessive for any server, even a complex platform. While each tool has a role, many are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., wallet funding tools, multiple approval/cancel variations), making the set feel bloated and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full task lifecycle, escrow/direct settlement flows, wallet management, webhooks, support, and administrative functions. The only notable gap is the inability to update task details beyond location (description, deadline, etc.) after dispatch, but core workflows are well-covered.