Conciergr Timetable

Change many classes at once

edit_classes

Destructive

Change up to 1,000 classes in one go, all or nothing: their months, class size, trial rules, room, add or remove a teacher, or delete them ({ delete: true }). Never levels, subjects, day or time. Send dry_run: true first. An applied change returns an undo id that works for 10 minutes (undo_bulk_edit).

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": {
      "class_ids": "<class_ids>",
      "change": "<change>"
    },
    "name": "edit_classes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`change`	Yes	One or more of: first_month, last_month (YYYY-MM), capacity, takes_trials, trial_cap_per_lesson, trial_notice_days, room, add_teacher_ids, remove_teacher_ids; or { delete: true } alone.
`dry_run`	No	true: check everything and save nothing, returning each item's result. Always do this first.
`class_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description earns credit for adding only-beyond-annotation facts: transaction atomicity, the 1,000-item ceiling, and an undo id valid for 10 minutes. It does not say what happens to items that fail validation in a partial-check dry run, nor how conflicts with existing lessons are handled.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with scope, then allowed fields, then the mandatory dry_run-then-apply workflow. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 destructive nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: batch limits, atomicity, dry-run sequencing, the undo path and its expiry, and the field whitelist including the exclusion list.

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 supplements it well by grouping the change fields into human categories and showing the delete shape inline ('{ delete: true }'). The 'never levels, subjects, day or time' constraint adds meaning the schema only implies via additionalProperties:false and const true. It does not spell out formats (YYYY-MM, teacher id source) that the schema partly covers.

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 and resource with scope ('Change up to 1,000 classes in one go') and immediately bounds the editable fields ('their months, class size, trial rules, room, add or remove a teacher, or delete them'). The negative clause ('Never levels, subjects, day or time') separates it from save_class and change_class_time without the agent reading either 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 an explicit prerequisite sequence ('Send dry_run: true first'), names the atomicity contract ('all or nothing'), and routes the follow-up to the sibling undo_bulk_edit with its 10-minute window. It also states what this tool must not be used for, which is the exclusion guidance most definitions omit.

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

All Conciergr Timetable 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?