SyncroMSP MCP Server

scheduling_update

Update a schedule in SyncroMSP by modifying its frequency, next run, and notification preferences.

Instructions

Update a schedule

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>"
    },
    "name": "scheduling_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Schedule ID (required)
`name`	No
`paused`	No
`next_run`	No
`frequency`	No
`charge_mop`	No
`snail_mail`	No
`customer_id`	No
`email_customer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, or side effects. The phrase 'Update a schedule' only implies mutation, without explaining if permissions are needed or if the operation can be undone.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not add meaningful context beyond the function name, failing to earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, field constraints, or relationships to sibling tools like scheduling_get or scheduling_create.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 11% (only the 'id' parameter has a description). The description adds no information about the other 8 parameters, such as 'name', 'frequency', or 'next_run'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Update a schedule' clearly indicates the verb (update) and the resource (schedule), distinguishing it from create, get, or delete operations. However, it does not specify what aspects of a schedule can be updated (e.g., fields like name or frequency), which limits full clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like scheduling_update_line_item or scheduling_create. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing schedule ID, or when updating is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server