Skip to main content
Glama

AssetLab

by ca.assetlab
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update PM schedule

update_pm_schedule
DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing PM schedule by ID. Requires pm_schedules:write scope. When changing location, resolve top-down: list_sites → list_buildings (by site_id) → list_locations (by building_id). Provide all three IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPM schedule ID
tasksNoChecklist of tasks for this PM schedule
titleNoPM schedule title
statusNoSchedule status
site_idNoSite ID - resolve first via list_sites
asset_idNoAsset ID
floatingNoFloating schedule (due date based on completion)
next_dueNoNext due date (ISO 8601)
asset_idsNoAssets this schedule covers - use instead of asset_id when there is more than one.
frequencyNoFrequency
meter_unitNoMeter unit (km, miles, hours, cycles)
start_dateNoStart date (ISO 8601)
system_idsNoSystems this schedule covers. Systems have no singular field; this array is the only way to associate them.
building_idNoBuilding ID - resolve second via list_buildings filtered by site_id
descriptionNoDescription
location_idNoLocation ID - resolve last via list_locations filtered by building_id
meter_basedNoWhether this PM triggers at meter intervals
location_idsNoLocations this schedule covers - use instead of location_id when there is more than one. Sending location_id alone replaces this with that single id.
schedule_typeNoSchedule type
work_categoryNoWork category label
estimated_costNoEstimated cost
lead_time_daysNoLead time in days
meter_intervalNoMeter interval - trigger every N units
estimated_hoursNoEstimated hours
auto_generate_woNoAuto-generate work orders
form_template_idNoForm template ID to attach to every work order this generates - resolve via list_form_templates. Use a PUBLISHED template: generation resolves the current published version of the form, so a draft attaches nothing until it is published.
grace_period_daysNoGrace period in days
safety_requirementsNoSafety requirements
custom_interval_weeksNoCustom interval in weeks (when frequency is CUSTOM)
infrastructure_asset_idsNoInfrastructure features this schedule covers - resolve via list_infrastructure_assets. One schedule over several features generates one work order per cycle covering all of them. Mutually exclusive with asset/location/system targets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful non-annotation detail: the required pm_schedules:write scope. It does not explain what a destructive update replaces or how partial updates behave, so with annotations doing the heavy lifting a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scope requirement, then the resolution workflow. Every sentence earns its place; minor overlap with schema descriptions keeps it off a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 30-parameter mutation tool with no output schema but 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the missing cross-cutting context (auth scope, location resolution order) an agent needs. It omits any return/response behavior, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 all 30 parameters are documented in the schema (including the location-resolution hints on site_id/building_id/location_id). The description reinforces the top-down location resolution but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update an existing PM schedule by ID'), which clearly separates it from create_pm_schedule, delete_pm_schedule, and get_pm_schedule. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like update_pm_template or update_compliance_pm_schedule, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 a concrete conditional workflow ('When changing location, resolve top-down: list_sites → list_buildings → list_locations') and names the resolution tools to use. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or disambiguation from sibling update tools, so it stops 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.

All AssetLab toolsInspect
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