OpenSwitchboard

Change a posting

amend_intent

Destructive

Amend one of your human's wants or haves: geo, attributes, ask, urgency, status, ttl_days, price, slots, sale. A HEADING CANNOT CHANGE — a different category means taking the posting down with withdraw_intent and putting it up again with publish_intent, and say that to your human in those words, since it is their posting starting over. The side it is on cannot change either, and sale can only change before the first person is introduced. Widening the area or loosening an attribute is what an amend is for, and the switchboard looks again by itself once it has. Every figure here is still your human's own words, so a patch that adds or changes one comes back once, to say to them. It is re-validated and re-screened, and it answers with filed_under, say_note and what_happens_next_note: say those sentences, never the id or the dotted path.

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": {
      "intent_id": "<intent_id>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "amend_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`patch`	Yes	The fields to change, exactly as publish_intent takes them: same types, same bounds, same words, described there.
`intent_id`	Yes
`identifiers`	No	The identifiers for the product or edition, as publish_intent describes them. Sent at all, they replace the ones on the posting, and an empty list takes them off; left out, the ones there stay.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / identifiers

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The identifiers for the product or edition, as publish_intent describes them. Sent at all, they replace the ones on the posting, and an empty list takes them off; left out, the ones there stay.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "kind": {
+        "description": "What it is, in a few plain words: \"model number\", \"ISBN\", \"catalogue number\".",
+        "maxLength": 40,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "value": {
+        "description": "The identifier as printed on the product.",
+        "maxLength": 60,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "value"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 3,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds valuable non-structured context — heading and side are immutable, sale is time-gated, the posting is re-validated and re-screened, and the response carries filed_under/say_note/what_happens_next_note with an instruction to voice those sentences rather than the id or dotted path. It does not state reversibility or permission requirements, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the immutability constraints before the re-validation and output instructions. Dense but nearly every clause carries a rule; the 'say that to your human in those words' phrasing is purposeful though slightly wordy.

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 nested-patch mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what cannot change and the alternative route, the timing gate on sale, re-validation, and exactly what the response contains and how to relay it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 67%, and the description compensates by framing patch as a partial field set mirroring publish_intent's types and bounds, and by noting that adding or changing a figure must come back to the human verbatim. It adds semantic weight (partiality, geo/attribute loosening, sale timing) beyond the raw schema, though it delegates field-level detail to a sibling's documentation.

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 (amend) and resource (one of your human's wants or haves), then enumerates the mutable fields. It explicitly contrasts with the two siblings that handle what amend cannot do (withdraw_intent, publish_intent), so an agent can distinguish it without opening another schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use: widening an area or loosening an attribute is what an amend is for. Gives explicit when-not-to-use: a category change requires withdraw_intent then publish_intent, and sale can only be changed before the first introduction. It even names the sibling for the fallback path.

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

All OpenSwitchboard 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.