Skip to main content
Glama

Timix.AI

by ai.timix

set_org_work_schedule

Create or update a named organization-level work schedule (a weekly working-time profile). Provide schedule_id to update an existing one, or omit it to create a new one. weekly_schedule is a JSON object mapping lowercase day names to a working window, e.g. {"monday":{"start":"09:00","end":"18:00"},"saturday":null}. The organization is fixed by your context. On update, only the fields you supply are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoSchedule name (required when creating).
notesNoOptional free-text notes.
is_activeNoWhether the profile is active. Defaults to true on create.
schedule_idNoId of an existing schedule to UPDATE. Omit to CREATE a new one.
idempotency_keyNoOptional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.
weekly_scheduleNoA JSON object (as a string) mapping lowercase day names (sunday..saturday) to a {"start":"HH:mm","end":"HH:mm"} window, or null for a non-working day. Example: {"monday":{"start":"09:00","end":"18:00"},"sunday":null}.
first_day_of_weekNoFirst day of the week: 0=Sunday .. 6=Saturday (1=Monday default).
default_for_countriesNoOptional comma-separated ISO-2 country codes this profile is the default for, e.g. "US,CA".

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency key behavior and partial update semantics, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description adds value but is not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action in the first sentence, then explains key behaviors in subsequent sentences. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's mutation nature, the description should ideally mention return values or error conditions. It covers the main operational aspects but lacks information about what the tool returns upon success or failure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by providing an example for weekly_schedule JSON format and explaining how schedule_id controls create vs. update. This elevates it above baseline.

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's action: 'Create or update a named organization-level work schedule (a weekly working-time profile).' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'organization-level,' differentiating it from 'manage_user_work_schedule' which deals with user schedules.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to create vs. update: 'Provide schedule_id to update an existing one, or omit it to create a new one.' Also clarifies that the organization is fixed by context and that updates are partial. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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

All Timix.AI toolsInspect
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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources