ZenSched

feedback_submit

File a grievance or product recommendation. Free. Works even before you have an account. Categories: bug, friction, missing_capability, docs, billing, feature, other. Severity: low, medium, high, blocker. Include related_tool and paste error text in context when reporting a bug. A human reads every submission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`body`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`context`	No
`category`	No	other
`severity`	No	medium
`related_tool`	No
`idempotency_key`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: submission is free, does not require an account, and is read by a human. This helps set expectations about cost, access, and processing style. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed only by high-value operational details. Every sentence contributes selection or invocation guidance.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, categories, severity, account requirement, and bug-submission specifics. The main missing piece is idempotency_key semantics, which matters for a submit-style tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It enumerates valid category and severity values and explains how to use context and related_tool for bug reports. Title and body are obvious; idempotency_key is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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?

States a specific action ('File') and resource ('a grievance or product recommendation'), with explicit categories. Clearly distinguishes this feedback tool from the account management and guide siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear usage context: free, works without an account, and gives targeted instructions for bug reports (include related_tool and paste error text in context). It does not name alternatives, but no obvious sibling fills the same role.

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

All ZenSched 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?