Skip to main content
Glama
pickuppatrol-mcp

pickuppatrol-mcp

by chrischall

pup_set_plan

DestructiveIdempotent

Set or clear a student's dismissal method for specific dates, overriding the weekly default. Confirm the change after reviewing a preview; read pup_list_transportations first for options.

Instructions

Change how a student is dismissed on one or more specific dates, or clear those dates back to the student's weekly default. This changes how a child actually leaves school. 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). The preview shows the exact payload. Read pup_list_transportations first — options differ in whether they require a note, a car number or an early-dismissal time.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoNote for the school; required by some options
datesYesOne or more YYYY-MM-DD dates to apply this plan to
car_numberNoCar number, for options where usesCarNumbers is true
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_idYesDismissal option id from pup_list_transportations, or null to clear these dates back to the student's default plan
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the real-world destructive effect ('changes how a child actually leaves school') and the full confirmation protocol, including the elicitation path, the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback, and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. This is exactly the kind of consequence-and-guardrail detail the destructiveHint annotation cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the confirmation mechanics, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, though the confirmation paragraph is dense and could be tightened; it is verbose but not wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the mandatory confirmation flow, the clearing semantics, and the prerequisite read. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds cross-parameter conditional logic (which options need a note, car number, or early-dismissal time, and that null transportation_id clears to default). That linkage is genuine added value over the per-field schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: change a student's dismissal on specific dates, or clear them to the weekly default. The date-specific scoping implicitly distinguishes it from pup_set_default_plans, which handles the recurring weekly plan, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Read pup_list_transportations first') and the reason for it (options differ in required note/car number/early-dismissal time), and it defines the clearing path via transportation_id=null. The when-to-use condition and the dependency are both spelled out.

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