get_show_scheduleReturns KAZM's weekly on-air program schedule. Optionally filter by day (weekday, saturday, sunday) or show name keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | Filter to a specific day group | |
| query | No | Keyword to filter by show name or host |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| station | Yes | ||
| schedule | Yes | ||
| timezone | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "schedule": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "station": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timezone": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "station",
+ "timezone",
+ "schedule"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds moderate value by specifying the content (KAZM schedule) and filtering options. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, no unnecessary words. Excellent conciseness.
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?
Given annotations and output schema exist, the description adequately covers the core behavior. Could mention ordering or response size, but not necessary for a simple listing.
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%; the description mostly restates the schema (day enum, query keyword). No additional semantics beyond what's in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool returns KAZM's weekly on-air program schedule with optional filters. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like get_now_playing.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use (schedule retrieval) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.