PushPress MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Update membership plan in PushPress

pushpress_update_membership_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Update membership plan in the user's own PushPress account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in PushPress step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's PushPress Cloud Browser. PushPress's official API: PushPress has a Platform API and an SDK that doubles as a local MCP server, both using an API key from Settings > Security & Access, but they are mostly read-only beyond creating customers and invitations (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": "pushpress_update_membership_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: 'opens nothing by itself' and that the return value is procedural guidance rather than a data payload. The dated API caveat ('checked 11 Oct 2026') is useful scoping information, though the future date undercuts its credibility slightly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening clause ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is filler that repeats the name rather than adding information. The API paragraph, while relevant, is dense and reads as an appendix rather than front-loaded guidance, so the structure is serviceable but not tight.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) plus the follow-up browser workflow. What remains unstated is how the specific plan is identified in conversation, a minor gap for a zero-parameter tool.

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 there is nothing to document beyond what the empty schema already states; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies. The description does not add parameter meaning, but none is needed.

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 makes clear that the real output is a step-by-step guide ('screens, buttons, fields'), not a mutation, which resolves the ambiguity created by the 'Update membership plan' name. It is less crisp about how it differs from the generic cotlet_app_guide sibling, so it falls 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?

It gives explicit sequencing: call this first to get instructions, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's PushPress Cloud Browser. It also explains why the official Platform API/SDK is not the right path for this operation, which is genuine alternative-routing guidance.

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

All PushPress MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?