Nas.com

Calculate Challenge Checkpoint Dates

calculate_challenge_checkpoint_dates

Read-only

Calculate checkpoint dates for a challenge. 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>",
      "checkpointId": "<checkpointId>",
      "startTime": "<startTime>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_challenge_checkpoint_dates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`startTime`	Yes	Start date and time (ISO 8601).
`applyToAll`	No
`challengeId`	Yes	Challenge ID, from list_products or a challenge tool for this business.
`checkpoints`	No
`communityId`	Yes	Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one.
`checkpointId`	Yes	Challenge checkpoint ID, from the challenge checkpoint list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 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 / checkpointId / description

Added value: +"Challenge checkpoint ID, from the challenge checkpoint list."

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."

addedInput schema / properties / startTime / description
```
Added value: +"Start date and time (ISO 8601)."
```

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing hard business-level restrictions (FREE businesses blocked regardless of feature rows) and required warning/link display before continuing. Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the remaining gap is that the description never says what the calculated dates mean or how time zones/edge cases 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and then layers the permission protocol in a logical order. Every sentence carries procedural weight, though the permission instructions are somewhat dense and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The permission/authorization story is thorough and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. However, with no output schema, the description should hint at what is returned (computed dates for which checkpoints, format) and never addresses applyToAll or the checkpoints array, leaving real gaps for a 6-parameter calculation tool.

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 67%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself (startTime, challengeId, communityId, checkpointId). The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, leaving applyToAll and the checkpoints array items entirely undocumented in prose. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this much of the load.

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: 'Calculate checkpoint dates for a challenge.' An agent knows exactly what operation it is invoking. It does not, however, distinguish this calculation from siblings like update_challenge_checkpoint_dates or bulk_update_challenge_checkpoints, so it stops short of a 5.

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 preconditions and sequencing: call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings and resubscribe links, and never proceed when access is blocked. It is clear about the gating flow, though it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over the update/bulk siblings.

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.