Ankra

Update pipeline schedule

update_pipeline_schedule

Change a repository's pipeline schedule. Only what you name changes; inputs replaces the whole input set (an empty object clears it); enabled false pauses it. Address the repository with exactly one of repository_id, application_id, or owner and repo. Needs pipelines.manage.

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": {
      "pipeline_schedule_id": "<pipeline_schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_pipeline_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	New branch or tag.
`cron`	No	New five-field cron expression.
`repo`	No	Repository name, with owner.
`owner`	No	Repository owner (organisation or user), with repo, instead of repository_id.
`inputs`	No	Dispatch inputs by name, as the pipeline's on.manual.inputs declares them; every value is a string.
`enabled`	No	true resumes it, false pauses it.
`provider`	No	Narrows owner and repo when the same repository is connected on two providers.
`timezone`	No	New IANA timezone.
`repository_id`	No	The connected repository's id, from list_pipeline_repositories.
`application_id`	No	An application whose linked repository to address, instead of repository_id.
`pipeline_schedule_id`	Yes	The schedule, from list_pipeline_schedules.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the description carries real weight here and delivers: patch-style updates, the fact that inputs replaces the entire input set and an empty object clears it, and that enabled=false pauses the schedule. These are non-obvious destructive-ish effects the agent could not infer. It does not say what happens to the schedule's run history or whether a paused schedule keeps queued runs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the semantics caveats, then the addressing rule and permission. No restatement of the name or title and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the pieces an agent cannot get elsewhere: addressing exclusivity, partial-update behavior, the inputs replacement gotcha, pause semantics, and the required scope. Remaining field-level detail is fully in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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, but the description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint absent from the schema: 'exactly one of repository_id, application_id, or owner and repo' (there is no oneOf in the schema). It also clarifies the replace-vs-merge semantics of inputs beyond the schema's per-field text. Remaining params (provider, timezone, cron, ref) are only covered by the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a repository's pipeline schedule'), which is clearly the mutation counterpart to create_pipeline_schedule and delete_pipeline_schedule in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings or say 'to create a new schedule, use create_pipeline_schedule', so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete operating context: partial-update semantics ('Only what you name changes'), the mutual-exclusion rule for addressing the repository, and the required permission ('Needs pipelines.manage'). It stops short of stating when to prefer a sibling tool or any preconditions such as the schedule needing to exist or not be currently running.

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

All Ankra tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.