Conciergr Timetable

Add or change one staff member

save_staff_member

Destructive

Add someone to the staff list (they sign in with their email), or change one's name, ticks and branches (give their id); everyone else stays. Owner only. Making someone an owner is done by a person in the staff app, not here; the business always keeps at least one owner.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "save_staff_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The staff member to change; leave out to add one.
`name`	No	Their name.
`email`	No	Their work email.
`is_owner`	No	false takes an owner's ownership away (the business always keeps one). Making someone an owner is refused here: it is done in the staff app.
`can_seats`	No	Can update seats and see trial children.
`branch_ids`	No	Otherwise, the branches their ticks apply at.
`can_classes`	No	Can add and change classes and make a branch live.
`all_branches`	No	Their ticks apply at every branch.
`can_closures`	No	Can add closed days and cancel lessons.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: owner-only authorization, the invariant that a business always keeps at least one owner, and that is_owner=true is refused. It doesn't cover the return payload or what happens to fields left unspecified on an update, so it stops short of fully fleshing out a destructive operation.

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?

One dense sentence with parentheticals, front-loaded with the add case before the change case, and every clause carries information. Slightly hard to parse at a glance because two modes and two invariants are packed into a single sentence.

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 9-parameter, all-optional mutation with no output schema, the description covers the create/update split, authorization, and the owner invariant. Missing only the response shape and validation expectations for a create without an email.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining that id switches between create and update and by grouping name/ticks/branches as the mutable set. It still doesn't clarify whether email is mandatory on creation, which is the main semantic question left open by an all-optional 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?

States a specific verb and resource with both modes spelled out: add a staff member, or change name/ticks/branches by id. The upsert dispatch is unambiguous and clearly separates it from siblings like remove_staff_member and list_staff.

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 explicit routing rules: omit id to add, supply id to change, and notes 'everyone else stays' so the agent knows this is a partial update rather than a replace. It also excludes owner promotion and points to the staff app as the alternative, though no sibling tool is named as an alternative path.

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?