meetergo-mcp

update_routing_form

Update a routing form with declarative sync for qualifiers and full-replace for funnel steps and fields. Set a slug to create an unlimited public share link.

Instructions

Update a routing form. Qualifiers use declarative sync (items with id are updated, without id created, missing removed); funnelSteps/fields are full-replace. Set a slug here to create an unlimited public share link (https://cal.meetergo.com/f/).

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "update_routing_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`patch`	Yes
`form_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, description explains side effects: declarative sync (upsert/delete) for items with id, full-replace for funnelSteps/fields, and public link creation when setting slug.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words, all information earned its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers key behaviors and side effects for a 2-param tool with no output schema; omits return value but acceptable given no output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning by explaining the patch object's declarative sync behavior, but does not enumerate valid fields or explain form_id's role.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates a routing form, distinguishing it from siblings like create_routing_form and delete_routing_form.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides detailed usage context on declarative sync behavior for qualifiers and full-replace for funnelSteps/fields, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives.

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