Create a ZenSched org without email (MCP-only agents). No OTP — returns org_id + zsc_ key immediately. Store the key securely. To attach a contact email later for human recovery, call account_set_contact. Rate-limited aggressively.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds that no OTP is involved, returns org_id + zsc_ key immediately, requires secure key storage, and is rate-limited. Minor gaps remain around idempotency or retry behavior, but they are not critical for a one-parameter create.
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?
Five short sentences, each adds distinct information: core purpose, response behavior, storage warning, follow-up path, and rate limit. The essential create action is front-loaded, and there is no 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, key security, and a follow-up route. It is slightly incomplete because org_name semantics are left to the schema title, and the referenced account_set_contact tool is not present in the provided sibling list.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for org_name semantics, but it never mentions org_name or gives format, length, or uniqueness guidance. The only meaning comes from the schema title 'Org Name', and the description adds no parameter-specific value.
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?
States a specific action ('Create a ZenSched org') and the main distinguishing constraint 'without email (MCP-only agents)', separating it from email-based signup flows. The no-OTP detail further clarifies what this tool uniquely does.
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 says this is for MCP-only agents and points to an alternative when a contact email is needed later: account_set_contact. It also warns that the tool is aggressively rate-limited, giving clear operational context for when to call it.
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.
The account tools are distinct flow steps (start/verify for signup, signin, recover) plus a status check and key usage, so they're largely unambiguous. However, the two start/verify pairs could be confused, and feedback_submit/zensched_guide are unrelated to account management, though their purposes are clear from descriptions.
The majority follow an 'account_' prefix with verb_style suffixes (e.g., account_signin_start). feedback_submit and zensched_guide break the pattern, but they are distinct actions and the naming is still readable and predictable overall.
11 tools is a reasonable number for an authentication-focused server, but the server is supposed to be for scheduling. With 8 of 11 tools being account/auth, the count feels heavy on setup and light on actual domain operations.
The tool surface is almost entirely authentication and account management, with no tools for scheduling core resources like locations, workers, shifts, or timesheets—despite the guide mentioning these as the intended workflow. The server would be useless for actual scheduling tasks.