PATCH /locator/settings — Update your Friday locator email settings
Update any subset of the Friday locator email toggles. Send only the fields you want to change.
⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trips | No | Include new trips to your area | |
| events | No | Include new events in your area | |
| enabled | No | Master toggle for the Friday digest | |
| tickets | No | Include DCers you follow getting event tickets |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns that this is a WRITE operation that mutates DC account data, using a warning emoji. No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden and does so effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a prominent warning. Every part adds value without redundancy. The HTTP method and warning are front-loaded for quick agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 boolean parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage pattern, and behavioral traits adequately. Could mention the endpoint path more explicitly, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description identifies the parameters as 'Friday locator email toggles' and notes they are boolean. This adds context beyond the input schema (which only gives field descriptions). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds meaningful grouping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title and description clearly state it updates Friday locator email settings, with specific reference to toggles. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `locator_settings` (likely read-only) by being the update counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains to send only the fields you want to change, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like `locator_settings` for reading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
