ppdm-mcp-server

update_schedule

Modify a PPDM protection policy stage schedule by setting its frequency, start time, or duration window to align backups with operational needs.

Instructions

Update the schedule of a PPDM protection policy stage — change frequency, start time, or duration.

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": {
      "policy_name": "<policy_name>"
    },
    "name": "update_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`frequency`	No	New frequency, e.g. HOURLY, DAILY, WEEKLY
`start_time`	No	New start time, e.g. 02:00
`policy_name`	Yes	Policy name — exact, or a partial name that matches only one policy
`stage_index`	No	Stage index to update (default 0 = first stage)
`duration_mins`	No	New window duration in minutes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, whether changes take effect immediately or affect in-flight jobs. For a mutation tool this leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (policy stage) precedes the affected fields. The only minor deduction is that the unexplained 'PPDM' abbreviation occupies prime space without aiding portability across agents.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With five parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema to explain, the definition is minimally viable. But for an unannotated mutation tool it should disclose update semantics (partial vs full replacement, immediacy, required state) that neither the schema nor annotations convey.

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 explains policy_name matching, stage_index defaulting to 0, and the format examples for frequency and start_time. The description's field list merely restates that, adding no new semantics such as whether duration_mins changes the window boundaries.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update the schedule of a PPDM protection policy stage') and enumerates the mutable fields (frequency, start time, duration), which separates it from read-only siblings like list_schedules. It stops short of naming the policy-level alternatives (pause_policy, resume_policy, trigger_backup) that an agent might confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for changing an existing stage schedule rather than listing it. There is no statement about prerequisites (must the policy be paused, must the schedule already exist) and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative.

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