FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

update_service_schedule

Idempotent

Update a service schedule window. Pass only fields to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`notes`	No	Free-form notes
`endTime`	No	End time (HH:mm)
`staffId`	No	Staff member ID
`byWeekday`	No	Weekdays (0=Mon..6=Sun) for weekly recurrence
`startTime`	No	Start time (HH:mm)
`recurrence`	No	Recurrence rule: none \| daily \| weekly \| monthly
`resourceId`	No	Resource ID (room/equipment)
`scheduleId`	Yes	Schedule ID
`maxCapacity`	No	Maximum capacity for this slot
`recurrenceEndDate`	No	Recurrence end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`recurrenceInterval`	No	Recurrence interval (e.g. every N weeks)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context that this is a partial update (PATCH-like), which goes beyond annotations. No mention of side effects or prerequisites, but overall good.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Highly efficient.

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?

Given 12 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavior. It could mention the required scheduleId, but that is in the schema. Sufficient for an update tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description offers a general guideline ('Pass only fields to change') but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Update a service schedule window', clearly indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_service_schedule by noting 'Pass only fields to change', implying partial update.

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?

Provides useful guidance on passing only changed fields, but does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives like create_service_schedule or when not to use. Context from sibling names helps infer, but description lacks direct exclusions.

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

All FavCRM tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions that minimize ambiguity. Even related tools like create_post vs create_post_type are well-separated by their targets.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_account, list_services, update_post), with no mixing of naming conventions. The pattern is predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count1/5

190 tools is excessively large for any server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 tool range. The sheer volume overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping, even for a comprehensive CRM platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD operations across many domains (CRM, bookings, marketing, CMS, etc.), but notable gaps exist (e.g., no delete_account, delete_contact, update_booking). These are minor given the vast surface.

Resources

Need Help?