Summer

Update company-wide settings with the expected version

summer_company_settings_update

Destructive

Update company-wide settings with the expected version. Affects every environment.

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "timezone": "<timezone>",
      "workflow": "<workflow>",
      "note": "<note>",
      "expected_version": "<expected_version>"
    },
    "name": "summer_company_settings_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`company`	Yes	Summer company ID
`timezone`	Yes
`workflow`	Yes
`email_subject`	No	Subject customers see on a new support email, such as "Your Example Co support request". Replies to a customer's email keep their subject. Leave out to keep the saved subject; an empty string clears it.
`idempotency_key`	No	Reuse the same key when retrying the same change
`expected_version`	Yes	Current version you expect; 0 when the resource does not exist yet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email_subject

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Subject customers see on a new support email, such as \"Your Example Co support request\". Replies to a customer's email keep their subject. Leave out to keep the saved subject; an empty string clears it.",
+  "maxLength": 150,
+  "pattern": "^[^\\r\\n\\t]*$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely useful scope disclosure ('Affects every environment'). However it omits key mutation behavior that annotations do not convey: six of the eight fields are required, implying a full replacement rather than a partial patch, which the agent cannot infer from annotations alone; it also doesn't reconcile the idempotency_key parameter with idempotentHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded and free of redundancy, so nothing is wasted. But the terseness comes at the cost of substance — there is no structure for prerequisites, field expectations, or return behavior — making it under-specified rather than efficient.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with 8 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage; the description carries far too little to make the call safely. Missing: version-conflict handling, whether it is a full replacement, and permission requirements for a company-wide change.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the undocumented half includes the required fields name, timezone, workflow, and note. The description says nothing about any parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap; an agent must guess the semantics of the required fields and what 'note' means.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (update company-wide settings) and adds the expected-version qualifier, so the agent knows it is a versioned mutation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling summer_company_settings_read, but the read/update split is self-evident from the name.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (permissions, capability checks, reading first to obtain expected_version), and no alternatives named. The only usage-adjacent signal is the scope note 'Affects every environment,' which warns about blast radius but does not tell the agent when to prefer or avoid this call.

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

All Summer 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.