intakeq-mcp

update_appointment

Modify an existing appointment by specifying its ID and new UTC date/time, with options to update status, service, location, reminder type, and email notifications. Note: client and practitioner cannot be changed.

Instructions

Update an existing appointment via PUT. Id and UtcDateTime are required. Cannot change client or practitioner.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "Id": "<Id>",
      "UtcDateTime": "<UtcDateTime>"
    },
    "name": "update_appointment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`Id`	Yes	Appointment ID (required)
`Status`	No	Appointment status
`ServiceId`	No	Service ID
`LocationId`	No	Location ID
`UtcDateTime`	Yes	New UTC date/time in Unix milliseconds (required)
`ReminderType`	No	Reminder type
`SendClientEmailNotification`	No	Whether to send client email notification

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses required fields and mutation constraints, but omits side effects, response format, or whether this is a full vs partial update.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two succinct sentences contain all necessary information without redundancy, with the primary action stated first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides core requirements and constraints but lacks important context such as whether unspecified optional fields are reset by the PUT operation.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds key context: Id and UtcDateTime are required, and client/practitioner cannot be changed (which are not parameters). This goes beyond the schema's basic field labels.

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 'Update an existing appointment via PUT', identifying the verb, resource, and HTTP method. It distinguishes from siblings like create_appointment by focusing on existing appointments, and notes the constraint on client/practitioner changes.

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?

It implies usage for updating existing appointments, but does not explicitly compare to create_appointment or other alternatives. The constraint 'Cannot change client or practitioner' provides a clear exclusion for certain update attempts.

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