Create a live, shareable day-of schedule for weddings, shoots, conferences and events.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool in the set, there is no possibility of overlap or misselection. The single tool's purpose (create a shareable run-of-show page) is unambiguous.
The name runsheet_create_schedule follows a clear server-prefixed verb_noun convention that is readable and predictable. Consistency across a set can't really be judged with one tool, but the convention itself is sound.
A single tool is thin for a scheduling/publishing server; one create operation is borderline minimal. It earns its place, but the surface feels sparse for the apparent scope.
Only creation is exposed; there is no tool to list, update, fetch, or delete existing schedules, so any edit or lifecycle workflow outside the returned edit link becomes a dead end. The tool bundles a lot into one call, but the overall CRUD surface is significantly incomplete.
Use when the user wants a shareable run-of-show or day-of schedule for a wedding, conference, shoot or other event that guests or crew can open on their phone and that updates live when edited. Creates the page and returns a view link to share with everyone and a private edit link to keep. Start from a template (wedding, conf, shoot, blank) or pass your own items. Example: {"name": "Maya and Sam wedding", "date": "2026-09-12", "timezone": "America/New_York", "template": "wedding"} or {"name": "Offsite", "items": [{"time": "09:00", "title": "Welcome", "duration_minutes": 30}]}. Creates a saved page, so only call it when the user wants one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| name | No | Event name. | |
| items | No | Schedule slots. | |
| template | No | Starter schedule. Ignored if items are given. | |
| timezone | No | IANA time zone, e.g. America/New_York. Default UTC. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/open-world profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return contract (a public view link plus a private edit link to keep) and the live-persistence behavior, which is exactly the context annotations cannot express. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so not a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the trigger and the outcome in the first sentence, then the return values, then the two example payloads — a sensible order. The examples are somewhat bulky inline JSON, but for a tool with a nested items array they carry real disambiguating weight rather than filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining what comes back (view link and private edit link) and does so explicitly. Combined with the trigger conditions, template options and worked examples, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and report the result.
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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by supplying two concrete payload examples that show how date, timezone, template and the nested items array (time/title/duration_minutes) combine in practice. It restates the template enum and the 'ignored if items are given' rule that the schema already carries, so it is additive rather than revelatory.
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 names a specific verb and artifact ('Creates the page') and enumerates the use cases (wedding, conference, shoot, run-of-show) with a clear distinguishing property: a shareable, live-updating, phone-openable day-of page. There are no siblings to confuse it with, and an agent can tell exactly what this produces.
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?
It opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants a shareable run-of-show...') and closes with an explicit exclusion ('Creates a saved page, so only call it when the user wants one'), which is the when-not guidance most definitions omit. The template-vs-items choice is also framed as an either/or.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
runsheet_createrunsheet_create_schedulerunsheet_list_templatesrunsheet_createrunsheet_list_templatesReal-time multi-track schedules for cooking, lab protocols, events and workouts. Validate and share.
Plan and run film productions: shot lists, breakdowns, schedules, call sheets, budgets and more.
Create events, collect guest photos and manage RSVP invitations for weddings and parties.
Plan group events together: dates, itineraries, expenses, polls, and tasks.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
