queue_update_queue_slotUpdate schedule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Queue name | |
| slots | Yes | (required) | |
| active | No | ||
| queue_id | No | Queue ID to update (optional) | |
| timezone | Yes | (required) | |
| profile_id | Yes | (required) | |
| set_as_default | No | Make this queue the default | |
| reshuffle_existing | No | Whether to reschedule existing queued posts to match new slots |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the actions already implied by the name. It does not mention side effects, replanning behavior, or what happens to existing scheduling data when the update is applied.
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?
The description is only two words, which is short but not usefully concise. It repeats the title instead of describing behavior, parameters, or intended usage in a structured or informative way. This is under-specification rather than conciseness.
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?
Despite having annotations and an output schema, the context is still incomplete for a destructive 8-parameter update operation. The description does not communicate the semantics of the schedule slot update, what the 'slots' represent, or how this relates to the queue lifecycle. An agent would need extra inference to safely and correctly use this tool.
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?
With schema description coverage around 88%, the schema carries most of the parameter meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description itself provides no parameter guidance, but most parameters have at least minimal schema descriptions such as 'Make this queue the default' and 'Whether to reschedule existing queued posts to match new slots.'
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_create_queue_slot, queue_delete_queue_slot, or queue_preview_queue. There are no exclusions, no scenario descriptions, and no hint about which conditions would make this tool the favored choice.
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.