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 declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, adding little beyond 'this mutates.' The description discloses key behavioral traits: no OTP, immediate return of org_id and zsc_ key, the need to store the key securely, and aggressive rate limiting. This is meaningful context beyond the structured annotations and is not contradictory.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, critical security guidance ('Store the key securely') is included, and the alternative follow-up tool is named. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter creation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: why this tool exists, what it returns, security handling, rate limits, and the follow-up path for attaching an email. Nothing needed for calling it correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add explicit detail about org_name beyond the schema's 'Org Name' title, but with only one required, self-explanatory parameter the gap is minor. The description's focus on org creation makes the parameter's purpose sufficiently inferable.
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 verb and resource: 'Create a ZenSched org without email (MCP-only agents).' It clearly differentiates from signup-style siblings by emphasizing the no-email, no-OTP, immediate-key flow, so an agent can tell it apart from account_signup_start without opening schemas.
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 clearly indicates the intended context: MCP-only agents that need an org without email. It also names account_set_contact as the follow-up for attaching a contact email later. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of the signup sibling, but the email-context guidance makes the usage boundary reasonably clear.
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 flows are mostly distinguishable: create, signup, signin, recover, and use_key have distinct purposes, and the descriptions include helpful preference guidance. The start/verify pairs and the similar signup/signin names create minor ambiguity, but descriptions resolve it.
Most tools follow a snake_case account_<action> pattern with clear start/verify pairs, and feedback_submit fits the verb_noun style. The naming is slightly inconsistent because zensched_guide is a bare noun and account_auth_status is not structured like the other action-oriented tools.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range, and the multiple account tools each correspond to a distinct authentication flow. The count is slightly heavy on account management relative to the apparent scheduling domain, but no tool feels redundant.
The guide explicitly mentions fund, locations, workers, shifts, and timesheets, but none of those scheduling operations are exposed as tools. The server is essentially an account-authentication and feedback surface, and it even references missing tools like account_get and account_set_contact, so it severely under-serves the stated ZenSched purpose.