Scribase

Create a schedule

schedule.create

Run SQL or a function on a timer. schedule is five cron fields in UTC ("0 3 * * *") or "N seconds" (1 to 59). Give exactly one of sql or function; payload goes with function. Jobs run while the project sleeps and every run is logged. Scope: database:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "schedule": "<schedule>"
    },
    "name": "schedule.create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sql`	No	A SQL statement to run
`name`	Yes	Job name: 1 to 64 lower-case letters, digits, _ or -
`branch`	No	Branch (environment) id. Optional: defaults to `production`.
`payload`	No	JSON body for the function (with `function`)
`function`	No	A function name to call
`schedule`	Yes	Five cron fields in UTC, or "N seconds"
`project_id`	No	Project id. Optional: defaults to the project created or used last in this session, or the only one.
`organization_id`	No	Organization id. Optional: defaults to the token's organization, or the only one you belong to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: jobs persist while the project sleeps, every run is logged, and the call requires database:write scope. It stops short of describing what happens on a failing run or how to inspect results afterwards.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact — purpose, schedule format, parameter constraints, runtime behavior plus scope — with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, format, exclusivity rules, and scope. The remaining gap is post-creation behavior — how to verify or troubleshoot runs — which the sibling schedule.runs/schedule.list tools presumably handle.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning the schema lacks: the mutual exclusivity of `sql` and `function` and the pairing rule that `payload` is only valid with `function`. It also restates the cron/'N seconds' format with an example and a 1–59 range, which is mildly redundant with the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Run SQL or a function on a timer' — and immediately constrains it to scheduled jobs, so an agent can tell it apart from schedule.run or schedule.update without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a strong invocation constraint ('Give exactly one of `sql` or `function`; `payload` goes with `function`') and states the required scope (database:write), but never says when to prefer creating a schedule over running something immediately via sql.execute or functions.deploy, and never points at the sibling schedule.* tools for listing or updating.

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

All Scribase tools Inspect

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

Need Help?