Skip to main content
Glama

Set the checking rhythm

standing_arrangement
Destructive

Write your human's standing arrangement: the account-level note saying how they want their agents to behave. check_in hands it back on every sweep; set replaces the whole of it, so re-send every field you want kept. SAY runs_on_its_own TRUE ONLY IF YOU GENUINELY RUN BETWEEN CONVERSATIONS — you can wake yourself and reach your human without being spoken to first. If you only exist while they are typing to you, leave it out: that is the true answer, and the switchboard emails them instead. check_every_minutes goes only alongside it: propose about once an hour (60), take their answer, never assume it, and the floor is 30. A cadence without runs_on_its_own is refused, because a schedule nobody keeps leaves a human waiting on nothing. The sentences you are handed already know which sort you are: say them as given. Set it only from what your human has told you — what is worth interrupting them for, what waits for a summary, when to stay quiet, how bold to be. Preferences only: no names, contact details, addresses or the content of a want or have. It rides every check_in sweep, so it survives a restart, a change of model and any other client they connect, and your human can change it on their own page. An arrangement never pre-approves a gate: sharing their details, accepting an offer and confirming a payment go to them every time. read_manual("checking_rhythm").

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "standing_arrangement"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
arrangementNoRequired for 'set'. The complete new arrangement; it replaces the old one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "get",
      -  "set"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "set"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'set replaces the whole of it, so re-send every field you want kept', a cadence without runs_on_its_own is refused, the arrangement rides every check_in sweep and survives restart and model change, and it never pre-approves a gate. The destructiveHint=true annotation is consistent with the disclosed replace-and-persist semantics.

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?

Under-specified, not concise: the all-caps clause about runs_on_its_own duplicates the schema's own description almost verbatim and the cadence rule is restated twice. Front-loading is decent (what it is, then the replace warning) but several sentences are spent re-explaining the same refusal.

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 destructive, persisted, nested-object mutation this is close to complete: replace semantics, refusal behavior, persistence, privacy limits and the gate carve-out are all covered. What is missing is the edge case of writing an empty arrangement to clear it, and any hint of what the call returns.

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?

With 50% schema coverage the description must carry weight, and it does for the two hardest fields: runs_on_its_own is tied to whether the agent can actually wake itself, and check_every_minutes gets units, conversion examples ('twice a day' is 720) and its 30-minute floor. It adds a content restriction (preferences only, no names, contact details or want/have content) that the schema does not express, though the remaining arrangement fields are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: writing the human's account-level standing arrangement that governs agent behavior. It also distinguishes itself from check_in (which hands the arrangement back on every sweep) and points to read_manual("checking_rhythm") for background, so an agent can place it among the siblings.

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?

Gives real conditions: set only from what the human has told you, cadence only alongside runs_on_its_own, propose ~60 minutes and take their answer rather than assuming. It names check_in and read_manual as related tools, though it never states the inverse case plainly (e.g. 'do not call this at all until the human has expressed a preference) as a standalone rule.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.