Skip to main content
Glama

Mangomint MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Reschedule appointment in Mangomint

mangomint_reschedule_appointment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reschedule appointment in the user's own Mangomint account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Mangomint step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Mangomint Cloud Browser. Mangomint's official API: Mangomint has no public API and no developer docs (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": "mangomint_reschedule_appointment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the tool opens nothing itself and returns screens/buttons/fields, which is useful output context. It also records the API absence, though it does not discuss permissions or limits.

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 and short, but the audience phrase and dated API note add some nonessential wording; still no major bloat.

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, no-output-schema guide tool, the description gives the needed output shape and follow-up workflow. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4; the description correctly does not fabricate parameter details.

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 states the resource (appointment) and clearly says the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the reschedule, explicitly separating it from cotlet_browser_* tools that act. It does not explicitly contrast with mangomint_book_appointment, but it is specific enough to identify the guide function.

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 tells the agent to use this tool for the step sequence and then carry it out with cotlet_browser_* in the Mangomint Cloud Browser, and it notes no public API exists. It lacks an explicit 'do not use if...' exclusion, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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.