Podyx MCP

podyx_aftercare_amendment_preview

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview a session amendment quote before accepting aftercare changes, including proposal, payment source, credit choice, and consents, without reserving slots or locking prices.

Instructions

Amendment preview POST /api/v2/sessions/{id}/amendments/quotes. Current key authority and stored tenant ownership apply. Customer policies differ from explicit staff actions. Acceptance freezes the target and selection; GET states actual payment, approval and fulfillment. Provider instructions are fetched separately after preparation; external money is reported by the studio. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "podyx_aftercare_amendment_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price, acceptance freezes the target and selection, and external money is reported by the studio. The tension between a POST endpoint and readOnlyHint is resolved by the explicit 'Read/preview only' statement rather than contradicted.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The endpoint and 'Read/preview only' are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle sentences are telegraphic fragments ('Current key authority and stored tenant ownership apply', 'Customer policies differ from explicit staff actions') whose meaning is hard to recover. Several clauses earn their place; a few read like internal shorthand that wastes space.

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 a deeply nested required body and no output schema, the description should explain what the preview returns (pricing? availability?) and how the request body is structured. Instead it discusses lifecycle and pagination, leaving the agent without the information needed to construct the call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the body is a large nested object with required `proposal`, `payment_source`, `credit_choice` and `consents`, yet the description explains none of them. Only oblique hints exist ('external money', 'target and selection'), leaving the agent to infer field meaning entirely from the schema.

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 first sentence names the operation (amendment preview) and the exact resource path (`POST /api/v2/sessions/{id}/amendments/quotes`), so an agent knows this produces a quote preview for a session rather than performing an amendment. It is distinguishable from siblings such as `podyx_aftercare_amendment` and `podyx_aftercare_start_amendment` by the word 'preview', though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

It signals 'Read/preview only' and that 'a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price', which tells the agent this is a non-committal step before acceptance. However, it never says when to prefer this over `podyx_aftercare_amendment` or `podyx_aftercare_start_amendment`, and the 'GET states actual payment' remark implies a follow-up call without naming the tool.

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

Deploy Server