Nas.com

Bulk Update Challenge Checkpoints

bulk_update_challenge_checkpoints

Create, update, delete, duplicate, and reorder checkpoints for a challenge product. Before offering this action or requesting its inputs, check business permissions. FREE businesses cannot use this tool, regardless of individual feature rows. Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs. Show any grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link before continuing, and never proceed when access is blocked.

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": {
      "communityId": "<communityId>",
      "challengeId": "<challengeId>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_update_challenge_checkpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`challengeId`	Yes	Challenge ID, from list_products or a challenge tool for this business.
`communityId`	Yes	Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one.
`createdUpsells`	No
`deletedUpsells`	No
`updatedUpsells`	No
`createdCheckpoints`	No
`deletedCheckpoints`	No
`updatedCheckpoints`	No
`duplicateCheckpoints`	No
`reorderedCheckpoints`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / challengeId / description

Added value: +"Challenge ID, from list_products or a challenge tool for this business."

addedInput schema / properties / communityId / description

Added value: +"Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one."

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a hard prerequisite tool call, a tier-based eligibility rule, and a user-facing warning requirement, none of which are expressible in the annotations. The only gap is that the delete operations listed sit in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, and the description does not clarify whether deletions are reversible or what happens on partial failure.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and then the gate, and every sentence carries an operational constraint. There is some redundancy between 'Before offering this action or requesting its inputs, check business permissions' and 'Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs,' but the repetition reinforces call ordering rather than padding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter bulk mutation with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description fully covers eligibility but leaves the data model largely unexplained — no mention of upsells, no statement of what a successful response reports, and no partial-success behavior. An agent could pass the permission gate and still not know how to build a correct payload.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 20% across 10 parameters. The description's verb list loosely maps to the checkpoint parameter groups (created/updated/deleted/duplicate/reordered), but it never mentions the three upsell parameters (createdUpsells, updatedUpsells, deletedUpsells) and never explains element shape, ordering semantics, or whether lists are absolute or incremental.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb set and resource: 'Create, update, delete, duplicate, and reorder checkpoints for a challenge product.' The word 'bulk' plus the plural scope distinguishes it implicitly from single-checkpoint siblings like update_challenge_checkpoint_dates, duplicate_challenge_checkpoint, and update_challenge_checkpoint_event, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states both when it may be used and when it may not: FREE businesses cannot use it 'regardless of individual feature rows,' and it must never proceed when access is blocked. It also prescribes the ordering of operations (call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and resubscribe link before continuing), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs.

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

All Nas.com 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.