list_schedulesLista as entregas agendadas (recorrentes/unicas) desta conta, com proximo disparo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner_phone | No | Numero do dono (so digitos, como texto ou numero). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / owner_phone / descriptionPrevious value: -"Numero do dono (so digitos). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless)."New value: +"Numero do dono (so digitos, como texto ou numero). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless)."Input schema / properties / owner_phoneAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Numero do dono (so digitos). Passe para reativar a conta se a sessao MCP for nova (clientes stateless).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds modest context: it lists schedules 'of this account' and mentions including the next trigger. No additional behavioral traits like side effects or auth needs are disclosed, but the description aligns with annotations and provides minimal extra value.
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 concise: one sentence that conveys the main purpose and key detail (next trigger). However, it could be better structured with separate lines for key aspects. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It mentions that listings include the next trigger, which gives some return structure context. However, it lacks information on pagination, filtering, or output format. Annotations provide some behavioral context (read-only, open world).
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the only parameter (owner_phone) in detail. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description offers no extra value for parameter semantics.
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 tool lists scheduled deliveries (recurring/unique) for the account and includes the next trigger. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'schedules', distinguishing it from siblings like 'schedule' (create) and 'cancel_schedule' (delete).
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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for listing schedules but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions. The context from sibling names provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.