kontato

Schedule a recurring delivery

schedule

Registra uma entrega recorrente ou unica no scheduler do Kontato. No horario, o Kontato roda o prompt como um agente completo (com web/Exa) e entrega no WhatsApp do dono. USE ISTO para "todo dia me manda X": voce nao precisa ficar online nem prometer trabalho futuro — o scheduler dispara sozinho. O prompt deve ser autossuficiente (ex: "Busque as principais noticias do mercado financeiro de hoje e entregue um resumo curto").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prompt`	Yes	O que entregar quando disparar. Autossuficiente.
`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).
`schedule_type`	Yes	cron=recorrente em horarios; interval=a cada N ms; once=uma vez.
`schedule_value`	Yes	cron: "0 8 * * *" (todo dia 8h, fuso BRT) \| interval: ms como "3600000" \| once: horario local "2026-06-20T15:30:00" (sem Z).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description explains the delivery mechanism (runs prompt as full agent with web/Exa, delivers via WhatsApp). Annotations indicate non-destructive and possibly world-changing, which aligns. No contradictions, but could mention error or conflict behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and usage guidance. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds necessary context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (scheduling, agent execution) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and an example. Lacks error or cancellation info, but adequate for an AI agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining the 'prompt' should be self-sufficient with an example, and clarifies that 'owner_phone' is for reactivation on new sessions. This goes beyond the base schema descriptions.

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 the tool schedules a recurring or one-time delivery using a prompt, and runs an agent with web/Exa to deliver to WhatsApp. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send' by emphasizing recurrence and automation.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use it ('todo dia me manda X') and contrasts with needing to be online. It does not mention alternatives like 'send' for one-off messages, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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

All kontato tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: provisioning, verification, sending, replying, scheduling, cancellation, listing schedules, viewing status, and browsing messages. There is no ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., cancel_schedule, list_messages). A few are single verbs (provision, reply, schedule, send) or a noun (status), creating minor inconsistency but still understandable.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a WhatsApp messaging/scheduling service. Each tool addresses a distinct operation without being excessive or sparse.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle: account setup (provision, verify), messaging (send, reply), scheduling (schedule, list, cancel), status checking, and message history. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?