Make yourself available for a single date in a repeating blockout while preserving the rest of the series.
Make you available on one date of a repeating blockout, keeping the rest of the series.
This can't be undone through the API (only in Planning Center itself, or by deleting the series).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| blockout_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the action cannot be undone through the API and would require the Planning Center UI or deleting the series. This is a critical warning that materially affects invocation decisions.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the irreversibility warning. No filler; every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (irreversibility) and the semantic result. The only notable gap is date/ID format guidance, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 0% and the description only implicitly conveys that blockout_id identifies the series while date identifies the single skipped occurrence. It adds some relational meaning but no format details (e.g., date format) that an agent would need to construct a valid call.
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 states a specific action (make you available on one date of a repeating blockout) and clarifies the scope (keeping the rest of the series). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_blockout or add_blockout. It is not quite a crisp verb+resource phrasing but is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'keeping the rest of the series' implies the use case versus remove_blockout, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer the alternative from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.