mcp-server

Propose Correction

propose-correction

[Auth Required] Propose corrections to a kal event (field/value). Multi-vote approval applies via correction flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	Proposed end (HH:MM)
`date`	No	Proposed date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`files`	No	Attached user_files ids (multiple). Upload via upload-file tool first.
`label`	No	Proposed label
`start`	No	Proposed start (HH:MM)
`amount`	No	Proposed amount
`currency`	No	Proposed currency
`duration`	No	Proposed duration (minutes)
`event_id`	Yes	Event ID
`settings`	No	Free-form settings blob (tags + event-to-event relations).
`status_id`	No	Proposed status id
`benefitable`	No	Proposed assignee. {type: 'user'\|'agent', value: int}. Must be a contract member.
`description`	No	Proposed description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / files

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Attached user_files ids (multiple). Upload via upload-file tool first.",
+  "items": {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "array",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / settings

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Free-form settings blob (tags + event-to-event relations).",
+  "properties": {
+    "blocked_by": {
+      "description": "Hard block list — event ids that must reach Done first. Same root contract.",
+      "items": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "do_after": {
+      "description": "Soft ordering hint. Same root contract.",
+      "items": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reply_to": {
+      "description": "Comment threading — sibling event id (same parent_id).",
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "tags": {
+      "description": "Project tags attached to this task. New keys auto-merge into the root contract dictionary.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "color": {
+            "description": "Hex color",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "key": {
+            "description": "Tag key",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "label": {
+            "description": "Tag label",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

AddedJul 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must be transparent; it adds that auth is required and that multi-vote approval applies, indicating the proposal is not immediately effective. But it omits any detail about the response, reversibility, or the state of the proposed correction.

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?

A single sentence with the auth notice up front. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the correction lifecycle, what happens after proposing, or any constraints beyond auth. The schema covers parameter format but not the broader workflow.

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 the schema fully documents all 13 parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond saying 'field/value'.

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?

The description states 'Propose corrections to a kal event (field/value)' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vote-correction' and 'get-pending-corrections' by making clear this initiates the correction flow.

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?

Mentions 'Multi-vote approval applies via correction flow', giving context that this is part of a multi-step process. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like vote-correction.

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

All mcp-server 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.

Propose Correction

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources