Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

pickuppatrol-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pup_set_default_plans

Set or clear a student's weekly default dismissal plan for one or more weekdays, with user confirmation before applying changes.

Instructions

Change a student's weekly default dismissal plan for one or more weekdays, or clear every default. This is how the child leaves school on any date without a specific plan. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Read pup_list_transportations first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoWeekdays to change, as names ("Monday") or ids (1 = Sunday … 7 = Saturday)
noteNoNote for the school; required by some options
clear_allNoRemove every weekday default instead of setting one (days is ignored)
student_idYesStudent id, from pup_list_students
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
transportation_idNoDismissal option id from pup_list_transportations
early_dismissal_timeNoHH:MM, required when the option is an early dismissal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the confirmation mechanism (both the client-supported prompt and the two-step token fallback), the clear_all behavior ('days is ignored'), and parameter dependencies (note required by some options, early_dismissal_time required for early dismissal). It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the mutation side effect and confirmation flow are well covered. Slightly more depth could be added on what happens to existing defaults when setting new ones.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the confirmation behavior and a precondition. The confirmToken explanation is long but necessary for correctness. There is no fluff, but it could be trimmed slightly without losing critical information. It is not overly verbose for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation, confirmation flow, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers the primary purpose, the two-step confirmation fallback, the precondition for reading transportation options, and parameter dependencies. The absence of an output schema is acceptable. Missing details like error handling or what happens on invalid inputs are minor and not essential for correct invocation. Overall, an agent can call this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it references pup_list_transportations for transportation_id and mentions the two-step token flow, but these are also in the schema. It does not significantly compensate for any gaps because there are none. The description adds a small amount of contextual guidance (read order), so it stays at baseline.

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 verb 'Change' and the resource 'student's weekly default dismissal plan', with explicit scope: 'for one or more weekdays, or clear every default.' It also clarifies the semantic context ('This is how the child leaves school on any date without a specific plan'), which distinguishes it from siblings like pup_set_plan (specific date) and pup_get_default_plans (retrieval). No ambiguity.

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?

The description gives a clear precondition: 'Read pup_list_transportations first.' It also explains the confirmation flow and when the confirmToken is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when a specific plan exists or when to use pup_set_plan instead. The implied distinction is present but not explicit, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools