Skip to main content
Glama

Update product schedule

suppco_update_product_schedule
DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when the user wants to change when or how they take a product that is already in their stack. Replaces that product's schedule: time-of-day amounts, daily, specific-days or every-other-day timing, as-needed, with food, and timing notes.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scheduleYesJSON array of time-slot assignments, e.g. [{"activity":"morning","units":2},{"activity":"bedtime","units":1}]. "units" is the number of capsules/tablets/scoops for that time slot — NOT servings. Valid activities: morning, midday, evening, bedtime, workout, unscheduled.
as_neededNoWhether the product is taken as needed (true/false). Omit to keep the current value — only pass it when the user asked to change it.
with_foodNoWhether the product should be taken with food (true/false). Omit to keep the current value — only pass it when the user asked to change it.
product_idYesProduct slug or UUID
schedule_daysNoArray of day names (e.g. ["monday","wednesday","friday"]) for specific_days schedule_type
schedule_typeNoSchedule type: daily, specific_days, or every_other_day
schedule_notesNoBrief timing instructions that the schedule cannot capture (e.g., "take 2 hours apart from calcium", "take on empty stomach 30 min before bed"). Set to empty string to clear.
change_daily_amountNoSet true ONLY when the user asked to change how many units they take per day. Without it, a schedule whose total differs from the current daily amount is rejected, so timing changes keep the same total.
every_other_day_startNoWhen to start every_other_day schedule: "today" or "tomorrow"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the word "Replaces" aligns with that by disclosing full-replacement semantics for the schedule rather than patching it. The description does not clarify that non-schedule fields (as_needed, with_food) are preserved when omitted, though the schema carries that detail.

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 sentences, trigger front-loaded and scope enumerated second, with no filler. The enumeration is a touch list-like but each item corresponds to a real capability an agent must expose.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, present destructive/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the resource, and the replacement contract an agent needs. Remaining details live in structured fields where they belong.

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 9 parameters in detail, including the change_daily_amount rejection rule and the units-vs-servings caveat. The description's enumeration of schedule aspects maps loosely onto parameters but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Replaces that product's schedule") and scopes it to a product "already in their stack", which separates it cleanly from siblings like suppco_get_my_schedule and suppco_add_to_stack. It then enumerates the schedule dimensions it governs, so an agent knows exactly what this tool owns.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to change when or how they take a product that is already in their stack" gives a clear trigger condition, and the 'already in stack' qualifier implicitly excludes new products. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., add to stack for new products), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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