OrgLines

Logistics: Update trip

logistics_update_trip

Destructive

Edit a trip's route, economics and times — from/to points, distance, cost, the carrier rate per ton, payment form and payment status, the licence/gate-pass number, the planned loading window, actual arrival at loading, and departure/arrival times. Send ONLY what you are changing; the server merges onto the current trip. This tool does NOT move the status (use logistics_set_trip_status), does NOT change the crew (use logistics_assign_trip) and does NOT record weights (use logistics_record_trip_weights). 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": {
      "trip_id": "<trip_id>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_update_trip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cost`	No
`trip_id`	Yes
`cargo_id`	No
`to_point`	No
`arrive_at`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.
`depart_at`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.
`from_point`	No
`distance_km`	No
`payment_form`	No
`license_number`	No
`carrier_rate_per_ton`	No
`carrier_payment_status`	No	One of: NotPaid, Partial, Paid.
`actual_arrival_at_loading`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.
`planned_loading_window_end`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.
`planned_loading_window_start`	No	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) or datetime.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses two behaviors annotations cannot express: the server merges the payload onto the current trip rather than replacing it, and the call is proposed rather than executed, returning status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token that must be completed via confirm_action. That is exactly the extra context a caller needs before invoking a destructive write.

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-loaded with the action and field list, then exclusions, then the confirmation protocol — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is on the longer side, but every clause (field inventory, merge rule, three exclusions, confirmation mechanics) carries information the agent needs.

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 15-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it edits, how partial payloads are handled, what it must not be used for, and the full two-step confirmation flow including the response fields to expect. Nothing material for a correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is only 40%, and the prose compensates by grouping and naming nearly every parameter (from/to points, distance, cost, carrier_rate_per_ton, payment form/status, licence number, loading window, actual arrival, depart/arrive). The merge semantics statement adds meaning the schema cannot convey. Minor gap: cargo_id is never mentioned in prose, and enum values for carrier_payment_status are left to the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Edit a trip's route, economics and times') and then enumerates the exact field groups touched, so an agent knows precisely what changes. It also explicitly demarcates itself from three siblings by naming them and the operations they own.

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?

Explicit routing rules are given for the most likely confusions: status changes go to logistics_set_trip_status, crew changes to logistics_assign_trip, weights to logistics_record_trip_weights. It also states the partial-update contract ('send ONLY what you are changing'), which tells the agent how to call it, not just when.

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?