Retrieve day-by-day dismissal plans for every student within a specified date range. Enter start and end dates to view scheduled pickups and changes at a glance.
Day-by-day dismissal plans across a date range for every student on the account, as PickUp Patrol returns them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| start_date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read. The description adds that it returns data 'as PickUp Patrol returns them,' but this is vague and doesn't clarify pagination, ordering, or limits. It provides minimal extra behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope with no wasted words. It avoids repeating schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should hint at what a 'plan' contains or how results are structured. It only says 'day-by-day dismissal plans,' which is vague. The description is adequate for triggering a call but not for interpreting the response, leaving the agent to guess the structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described as YYYY-MM-DD. The description mentions 'date range' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list) and resource (dismissal plans), and specifies the scope: day-by-day across a date range for every student. It differentiates from siblings like pup_get_plan (single student) and pup_get_default_plans (defaults) by emphasizing 'every student' and 'across a date range.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use this to get a comprehensive list of plans for all students over a period. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it's not for single-student or default-plan queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.