updateAppointmentType
Update the name of an existing appointment type by providing its ID and new name.
Instructions
Update an appointment type
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Type ID | |
| name | Yes | Name |
Update the name of an existing appointment type by providing its ID and new name.
Update an appointment type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Type ID | |
| name | Yes | Name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but does not explain idempotency, authorization, error handling, or whether the update is partial or full.
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?
The description is very concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It is efficiently sized but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It conveys the core purpose but lacks details about return values or potential side effects.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 'Update' and the resource 'appointment type', which differentiates it from sibling tools like createAppointmentType, deleteAppointmentType, and getAppointmentType.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mindwear-capitian/followupboss-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server