regenerate_scheduleRebuild the channel's schedule now using the current weights. Call this after changing weights on a channel that is ALREADY live, otherwise the change will not air until the hourly cron. Throttled to one call per channel per 5 minutes; exceeding that returns 429 with a Retry-After header giving the seconds remaining. Requires the channel to meet launch requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond the annotations: a 5-minute throttle, a 429 response with Retry-After, and the requirement that the channel must meet launch requirements. It also implies that changes are not automatically airing immediately without this call, which explains the tool's effect. No contradiction with the destructiveHint or non-idempotent hints.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, and behavioral constraints. No redundant phrasing or filler. The description is front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what triggers it, how it differs from the cron, rate limits, errors, and requirements. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, and no critical information for a mutation is missing.
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?
The only parameter, channel_id, is clear from the description's repeated reference to 'the channel', and the schema names it explicitly. However, the description does not formally describe the parameter type or explain what should be passed beyond the name, leaving a slight gap. Given the single self-explanatory parameter, the description adds enough contextual meaning to merit a strong score.
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 opens with 'Rebuild the channel's schedule now using the current weights', clearly stating the verb, resource, and immediate action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_schedule (read) and set_schedule_rules (configure) by focusing on manual regeneration. The specificity of 'now' and 'current weights' leaves no ambiguity.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to call: 'Call this after changing weights on a channel that is ALREADY live, otherwise the change will not air until the hourly cron.' It also names the alternative (waiting for cron) and notes throttling and prerequisites. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. wait guidance that helps an agent decide.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct: channel lifecycle (create/get/update/archive/list), asset management (import/delete/list/set_asset_weight), schedule management (get/set/validate/regenerate), and transcode (get status/retry). Minor overlap exists between archive_channel and delete_asset, but descriptions clarify the scope (whole channel vs single video). import_video_from_url and import_youtube_video are distinct in source and ownership requirements.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: archive_channel, create_channel, delete_asset, get_channel, list_assets, set_asset_weight, validate_schedule_rules, etc. Verbs are action-oriented (create, get, list, update, archive, delete, import, set, regenerate, retry) and nouns are resource names (channel, asset, schedule, transcode). No mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do_thing'.
19 tools is well-scoped for a TV channel management server covering channel lifecycle, asset ingestion, scheduling, and transcode monitoring. Each tool addresses a distinct need and the count feels proportional to the complexity of managing a 24/7 linear TV channel. Not bloated with redundant tools, and each has a clear purpose.
The surface covers the core domain comprehensively: channel CRUD (create, get, update, archive, list), asset management (import, delete, list, weight), scheduling (set rules, validate, regenerate, get schedule), and transcode monitoring (status, retry). Minor gaps: no direct way to upload local files (stated as a limitation), no channel deletion (only archive), and no ability to manage playlists explicitly. However, these are acknowledged design constraints or edge cases, so the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.