OrgLines

Logistics: Update fleet unit

logistics_update_fleet_unit

Destructive

Edit a tractor or trailer — plate, brand/model, type, capacity, carrier, status (Free / OnTrip / Repair), service and inspection dates. 'kind' must say which register the unit is in. Send only what changes. Requires confirmation. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "unit_id": "<unit_id>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_update_fleet_unit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vin`	No
`kind`	Yes
`axles`	No
`brand`	No
`color`	No
`model`	No
`plate`	No
`status`	No	One of: Free, OnTrip, Repair.
`unit_id`	Yes
`volume_m3`	No
`capacity_t`	No
`carrier_id`	No
`trailer_type`	No	One of: Grain, Dump, Tent. Trailers only.
`vehicle_type`	No	One of: Tractor, Dump, Grain. Vehicles only.
`default_driver_id`	No
`next_service_date`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.
`next_inspection_date`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.
`registration_certificate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the crucial fact that no write actually happens on this call and that the effect is deferred behind a proposal token confirmed by confirm_action. It also discloses the exact response fields (status, action_id, plan_token) the agent must handle, which is behavior no structured field conveys.

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?

Field list is front-loaded and dense, and the confirmation contract is clearly separated in caps. Slight redundancy between 'Requires confirmation' and the following CONFIRMATION sentence, but the repetition is defensible for a critical safety-relevant rule.

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 an 18-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: field scope, partial-update expectation, required 'kind', and the full confirmation handshake. It stops short of covering permission requirements or what the confirmed write returns, but nothing an agent needs to avoid a mistaken direct write is missing.

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 only 28% across 18 parameters, so the description carries real weight and does cover plate, brand/model, type, capacity, carrier, status and the two date fields. However, several parameters (vin, axles, color, volume_m3, default_driver_id, registration_certificate) get no mention, and it does not clarify the vehicle_type vs trailer_type exclusivity beyond 'kind' must say which register.

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 ('Edit') plus the two resources it operates on (tractor or trailer) and enumerates the editable attributes up to and including status values. Together with the sibling name logistics_create_fleet_unit, an agent can immediately tell this is the mutation path for an existing unit rather than a creation path.

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 the operative rule 'Send only what changes' (patch semantics) and then routes the agent through the explicit two-step flow: call this, receive status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token, then call confirm_action. It also names the condition ('kind' must identify the register), which distinguishes vehicle vs trailer updates.

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

All OrgLines 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?