MNotify MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_scheduled_sms

Update a scheduled SMS campaign by providing the campaign ID, sender ID, and new schedule time. Optionally change the message content.

Instructions

Update a scheduled SMS campaign.

Supply id, sender_id, schedule_time, and optional message (≤ 460 chars).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "sender_id": "<sender_id>",
      "schedule_time": "<schedule_time>"
    },
    "name": "update_scheduled_sms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`message`	No
`sender_id`	Yes
`schedule_time`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the character limit for 'message' and lists required fields, but does not explain the update's effect (e.g., whether it overwrites all fields, if the campaign must be unsent, or error handling).

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list the required and optional parameters. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on success/error behavior, idempotency, or prerequisites. The output schema may describe return values, but the description does not bridge the gap for the agent's operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by identifying 'message' as optional with a 460-character limit, but does not describe the format of 'schedule_time' or the origin of 'sender_id', leaving some parameters under-documented.

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 clearly states 'Update a scheduled SMS campaign', providing a specific verb and resource. While there is no explicit sibling differentiation, the sibling tools are mostly unrelated operations, so the purpose is distinct and clear.

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?

The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when you need to update a scheduled campaign) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No usage exclusions or contextual prerequisites are provided.

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