Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PatrolTech

by online.patroltech
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose editing a checkpoint

patroltech_checkpoints_propose_edit

Use when you want to change the name or description of a checkpoint. 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": {
      "checkpoint": "<checkpoint>"
    },
    "name": "patroltech_checkpoints_propose_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name. Omit it if it does not change.
locationNoLocation of the checkpoint, if several share that name. Omit it otherwise.
checkpointYesCurrent name of the checkpoint.
descriptionNoNew description. Omit it if it does not change.
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the staging/proposal model, the 10-change batch ceiling, that no account state mutates, that summaries are returned for user review, and that confirmation is a separate human-gated call. This is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a mutation-staging tool, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false.

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 sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded: trigger first, then the safety/staging caveat, then the required follow-up action. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what it stages, the batch limit, that the return value is summaries intended for the user, and which tool finalizes it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries guidance ('Omit it if it does not change', the organization disambiguation rule), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds one useful nuance by framing the tool as editing only name/description, implicitly clarifying that 'location' is a disambiguator rather than an edit target. No additional format or validation detail is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact editable surface: 'change the name or description of a checkpoint.' That scope language distinguishes it from patroltech_checkpoints_propose_create and patroltech_locations_propose_edit without naming them explicitly, so an agent can route correctly. It stops just short of explicitly naming the sibling alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit trigger ('Use when you want to change the name or description of a checkpoint') plus an explicit non-effect ('nothing changes in the account yet') and an explicit next step ('call patroltech_proposals_confirm only after they agree'). It also names the batching constraint (up to 10 changes per connection) which bounds when to prefer small batched calls.

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