Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_products_update_airing

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace an existing airing rule for a product placement by sending the complete schedule—frequency, dates, time windows, and time zone—then review warnings for airing overlaps.

Instructions

[Merchant] Replace one airing rule: every field is replaced, so send the whole rule. Check warnings in the response for AIRING_OVERLAP.

Endpoint: PUT /products/{productId}/placements/{placementId}/airings/{ruleId} (PRM plan)

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": {
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "placementId": "<placementId>",
      "ruleId": "<ruleId>",
      "frequency": "<frequency>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "windows": "<windows>"
    },
    "name": "payware_products_update_airing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleIdYesThe airing rule's ID, from payware_products_list_airings
endDateNoLast day, YYYY-MM-DD, at most 366 days after startDate. Omit for open-ended
windowsYesTime windows on each day it airs, local to the time zone: 1 to 24, each up to 6 hours
timeZoneNoIANA time zone, e.g. Europe/Sofia. Default: the product's
frequencyYesHow the rule repeats
monthDaysNoMONTHLY by date: days of the month. A day a month lacks is skipped
monthWeekNoMONTHLY by weekday: which week, -1 for the last. Use with monthWeekday
productIdYesThe product's ID: pr + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pr7e4rCToG
startDateYesFirst day, YYYY-MM-DD, in the rule's time zone
daysOfWeekNoWEEKLY: the days it airs on
useSandboxNoUse the sandbox (the default) rather than production
placementIdYesThe placement's ID: pl + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pl7e4rCToG
repeatEveryNoEvery N days, weeks or months. Default 1
monthWeekdayNoMONTHLY by weekday: the weekday
excludedDatesNoDays it does not air, YYYY-MM-DD
expectedAudienceNoExpected audience per airing, for your own planning

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: full-replacement semantics (omitted fields are wiped), a response-level `warnings` field carrying AIRING_OVERLAP, and a PRM plan prerequisite. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or what happens on overlap beyond the warning, which keeps it below 5.

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 tight sentences plus an endpoint line, with the destructive replace semantics front-loaded and bolded. Nothing is redundant and the reader gets the critical warning before the mechanics.

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?

For a 16-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the most dangerous aspect (whole-rule replacement), the response signal to check, and the plan gate. It leaves out auth requirements and error/rollback behavior, but the rich schema carries the rest.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in detail, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds one useful semantic point—all fields must be resent because it is a replace, not a patch—but does not explain any individual field beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Replace one airing rule', and the emphasis on 'one' implicitly separates it from the bulk `payware_products_replace_airings` sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Every field is replaced, so send the whole rule' gives a concrete condition for how to call it, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over `payware_products_create_airing` or the bulk replace tool, and no stated preconditions such as needing an existing ruleId from `payware_products_list_airings`.

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