Tineo

Update trip

trip_update

Destructive

Update trip dates, title, destination, or description for a trip the authenticated user can edit. May synchronize changes to the trip owner's connected calendars when automatic sync is enabled.

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": {
      "trip_id": "<trip_id>"
    },
    "name": "trip_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Alias for title
`title`	No	New trip title (e.g., 'Japan October 2026')
`trip_id`	Yes	The ID of the trip to update
`end_date`	No	Trip end date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`start_date`	No	Trip start date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`description`	No	Optional trip description or notes, up to 1000 characters (keep it under about 900)
`destination`	No	Primary destination city or region
`destination_scope`	No	Required as 'trip' when changing destination on a trip that already has dated itinerary items.
`destination_confirmed`	No	Required true when changing destination on a trip that already has dated itinerary items; confirms this is a parent-trip change, not an item location correction.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds a valuable side effect beyond the annotations: automatic calendar synchronization for the trip owner. The annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent behavior, but the description does not explain what 'destructive' means here (field overwrite, effect on itinerary items, reversibility) or partial-update semantics when optional fields are omitted.

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?

Two focused sentences with no wasted wording, and the primary operation is front-loaded ahead of the calendar-sync caveat. It could be slightly tighter by integrating the permission and sync notes, but the structure is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nine parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main fields and an important side effect. It still leaves gaps around partial-update behavior, what happens when only trip_id is supplied, and the consequences of overwriting existing field values, which an agent would need before calling safely.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including the conditional destination_scope and destination_confirmed fields. The description only restates the main updatable fields and adds no syntax, constraints, or conditional logic beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (trip) and enumerates the mutable fields: dates, title, destination, and description. It does not name or distinguish from close siblings such as trip_rename, which also touches the title, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a permission boundary ('a trip the authenticated user can edit'), which is useful context for when the call will succeed. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over trip_rename or other trip update tools, and no explicit exclusions.

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

All Tineo 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.

Resources

Need Help?