Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PatrolTech

by online.patroltech
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose creating a checkpoint

patroltech_checkpoints_propose_create

Use when you want to add a new checkpoint to a location. It only adds a proposal to the pending batch of this connection (up to 10 changes); nothing changes in the account yet. Show the returned summaries to the user and call patroltech_proposals_confirm only after they agree.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "patroltech_checkpoints_propose_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCheckpoint name: short, describing the place, in normal case, e.g. "Main entrance". No generic prefixes such as "Checkpoint 1" and no numbering; if the user gives it that way, propose the clean version (they see it in the summary). If they insist on their format, keep it.
methodYesqr (default: printed and stuck on the spot) or manual_code (the guard types the code; when it cannot be printed).
locationNoLocation where to create it. Ask for it only if there are several.
organizationNoOmit unless the account has more than one organization; then the exact name (or id) as listed by patroltech_account_get_context.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that nothing changes in the account yet and that the call only stages a proposal in the pending batch. It also discloses the batch ceiling (up to 10 changes) and the required user-confirmation step before patroltech_proposals_confirm, which no structured field conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and followed by the staging behavior and the confirmation hand-off. No sentence is redundant and none could be dropped without losing a constraint.

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?

For a non-destructive staged-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers staging semantics, the batch limit, and the confirmation gate. The only gap is what happens when the batch of 10 is already full and what the returned summaries contain, neither of which is stated.

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 already carries the meaning of name, method, location and organization, including the enum guidance. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning that returned summaries show the result, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ("add a new checkpoint to a location"), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with patroltech_checkpoints_propose_edit, which keeps it from the top score.

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 a clear triggering condition ("Use when you want to add a new checkpoint to a location") and encodes the downstream workflow: show summaries to the user, then call patroltech_proposals_confirm only after they agree. It stops short of naming alternatives such as the edit or list siblings for disambiguation.

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

All PatrolTech toolsInspect
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