Skip to main content
Glama

CountLink

by app.countlink
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a chained agenda of timed segments

create_agenda
Read-only

Create a CountLink agenda: an ordered sequence of named, timed segments (intro, talk, break, Q&A) that starts now and advances from one to the next on its own, on every screen that opens the link, with no server involved. Use this when someone describes a meeting, workshop, lesson or event as a sequence of parts with lengths — including when they give you a total and a list of topics and expect you to split it ("an hour, four topics"): do the split yourself, then pass the resulting segments here. By default it starts immediately; pass start_at for something scheduled ahead ("our workshop starts at 9:15 tomorrow") — the link works right away, showing a live countdown to the start rather than the first segment, and switches over on its own at the scheduled instant, in sync on every screen that opened it. Returns the shared link plus a run sheet with the wall-clock start and end of each segment, and an .ics calendar file (one event per segment) in structuredContent.ics — offer it if the person might want the agenda on their calendar. For a single countdown use create_timer instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
segmentsYesThe segments in running order. Each has a duration (same grammar as create_timer: "10m", "1h", "90s", "5:00", or a plain number of minutes) and an optional short label. 1–24 segments; the whole agenda must fit in 99h59m59s.
start_atNoOptional ISO-8601 instant for a scheduled start, e.g. "2026-09-08T09:15:00Z" or with a local offset like "2026-09-08T09:15:00+01:00". Omit to start immediately. A start_at already in the past is just treated as already running from that instant.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / segments / items / properties / duration / description
      Previous value: -"How long the timer runs. Accepts \"25m\", \"1h30m\", \"90s\", \"5:00\", \"1:30:00\", or a plain number read as minutes (\"45\"). Maximum 99h59m59s."New value: +"How long the timer runs. Accepts \"25m\", \"1h30m\", \"90s\", \"5:00\", \"1:30:00\", or a plain number read as minutes (\"45\"). A setup link or OBS overlay holds up to 99h59m59s. With start_now or embed_on_website, longer countdowns of up to 366 days are fine: \"10d\", \"10 days\", \"10d 6h\" or \"240h\"."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich behavioral context: automatic advancement, no server involvement, countdown-to-start behavior with start_at, sync across screens, and return artifacts (link, run sheet, .ics). No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, then explains usage, start_at behavior, returns, and the alternative. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (chained segments, scheduling, splitting), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, return artifacts, and alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly without additional guidance.

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% with detailed descriptions for both segments and start_at, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds usage context (e.g., splitting example) but does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a CountLink agenda: an ordered sequence of named, timed segments that advances automatically. It names the verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from create_timer at the end, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says 'Use this when someone describes a meeting, workshop, lesson or event as a sequence of parts with lengths' and gives a splitting example. It also states 'For a single countdown use create_timer instead,' providing a clear exclusion and alternative.

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

All CountLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources