My TV Channel

Validate schedule rules

validate_schedule_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

DRY-RUN a ruleset. Saves nothing. Returns {valid, errors, warnings, preview} where preview is a simulated 24h grid of what would actually air. Intended as the dry run for set_schedule_rules: rules are wall-clock, slots start on-or-after their time, and dayparts reweight the random fill, so the airing result is hard to predict from the rules alone. Unlike set_schedule_rules this is not tier-gated and works on any tier. Same payload as set_schedule_rules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hours`	No	How many hours to simulate (default 24, max 168)
`rules`	Yes	Same shape as set_schedule_rules
`timezone`	No	IANA name, e.g. "Europe/Paris"
`channel_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'Saves nothing', the simulated 24h grid, and the explanation of wall-clock rules and daypart reweighting. This helps the agent understand why a dry-run is needed and what the preview represents.

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?

Four sentences, all dense with purpose-built information: return values, why it exists, how it differs, and payload reference. No filler 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?

Even without an output schema, the description clearly lists the return object and its fields. It explains what the preview is, references the sibling for payload consistency, and addresses tier-gating. For a validation tool with clear annotations, this is fully sufficient.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rules semantics ('rules are wall-clock, slots start on-or-after their time') and pointing to 'Same payload as set_schedule_rules' for the full shape, which aids parameter understanding. It does not, however, detail each parameter individually.

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 opens with 'DRY-RUN a ruleset' and specifies the exact return structure, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It explicitly contrasts with set_schedule_rules ('Unlike set_schedule_rules...'), clearly distinguishing this validation tool from the mutation sibling.

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?

States 'Intended as the dry run for set_schedule_rules', giving an explicit when-to-use directive. It also notes the tier-gating difference ('not tier-gated and works on any tier') and references 'Same payload as set_schedule_rules', providing clear guidance on how to invoke it relative to another tool.

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

All My TV Channel tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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'.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?