Skip to main content
Glama
This connector has been deprecated

This was a duplicate manual listing. Use Summer’s official listing, imported from the official MCP Registry. Summer’s MCP server remains active at https://api.gosummer.ai/mcp. Setup and documentation: https://gosummer.ai/docs/mcp-clients.

Act on several rows from reports

summer_delivery_bulk
Destructive

Act on several rows from reports.delivery at once: request a new plan, approve each case's current saved plan and run it, or start an approved plan that is waiting. Returns done, skipped or failed with a reason for each row. Rows with no confirmed result are never run again. Approval binds to each case's exact saved plan and prepared changes; plans that changed or need a choice between options are skipped. request_plan needs investigations.request; the others need a person's delegated actions.approve.

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": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "environment": "<environment>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "attempts": "<attempts>"
    },
    "name": "summer_delivery_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesrequest_plan asks the agent for a new plan. approve_and_run approves each case's current saved plan, bound to its exact prepared changes, then runs it. run_again starts an approved plan that is waiting to start.
companyYes
attemptsYesRow ids from reports.delivery.
environmentYes
authorizationNoThe operator's instruction for this work, kept with each approval. Needed for approve_and_run and run_again. This is context, not an identity attestation.
idempotency_keyNoReuse the same key when retrying the same change

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: per-row done/skipped/failed outcomes with reasons, the guarantee that rows without a confirmed result are never re-run, that approvals bind to the exact saved plan and prepared changes, that changed plans or plans needing a choice are skipped, and the required authorization per action. These are precisely the destructive, non-idempotent semantics the annotations flag but cannot explain.

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 destructive scope and the three actions are front-loaded and every sentence carries information; nothing is filler. It is dense to the point of being terse, with compressed references like 'investigations.request' and 'actions.approve' that an agent must resolve, but no material is wasted.

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 a destructive bulk-mutation tool with no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (done/skipped/failed per row with reasons), the safety invariants for re-runs, and the auth prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 67% and the description meaningfully extends it, explaining what each action value actually does and that 'authorization' is an instruction kept with each approval rather than an identity attestation. Only idempotency_key and the company/environment scoping go undiscussed in prose, which the schema handles adequately.

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 pattern ('Act on several rows from reports.delivery at once') plus the exact resource and then enumerates the three concrete operations available. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tool summer_reports_delivery and from single-case tools like summer_actions_approve.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for each action and states the prerequisite for each branch ('request_plan needs investigations.request; the others need a person's delegated actions.approve'). What it does not do is say when to prefer this bulk tool over calling the single-case equivalents like summer_actions_prepare or summer_actions_approve on individual rows, so it falls just short of a 5.

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.

Resources