Skip to main content
Glama

Contractor Foreman MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Update schedule in Contractor Foreman

contractor_foreman_update_schedule
Read-onlyIdempotent

Update schedule in the user's own Contractor Foreman account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Contractor Foreman step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Contractor Foreman Cloud Browser. Contractor Foreman's official API: Contractor Foreman has no public API (checked 11 Oct 2026).

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": "contractor_foreman_update_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns UI-level instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and performs no side effects by itself. It also explains the absence of a public Contractor Foreman API, which justifies the browser-based execution path.

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?

The core behavior and next step are front-loaded in the second sentence. Some phrasing is expendable, particularly 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent,' but the description remains short and mostly purposeful.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns, that it performs no action, and what tool category to use next. Nothing essential for 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter guidance, which is appropriate because there are no parameters to explain.

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 description says it returns step-by-step instructions for updating a schedule and explicitly notes it 'opens nothing by itself.' The leading phrase 'Update schedule' is slightly misleading for a read-only guide tool, but the second sentence resolves the ambiguity and distinguishes it from the browser tools that perform the action.

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?

It clearly tells the agent to use this tool first for instructions and then execute via the cotlet_browser_* tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when the agent already knows the workflow, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.