schedule_wakeupYou have no cron; we do. Fires a schedule.fired event with your payload at run_at / in_seconds, optionally every interval_seconds. Pair with a webhook to be woken when idle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| run_at | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| max_runs | No | ||
| in_seconds | No | ||
| interval_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool fires an asynchronous event, supports one-shot or interval-based execution, and pairs with a webhook for wake-up delivery. It does not cover lifecycle details like cancellation or max_runs behavior, but the core behavioral side effect is clearly communicated.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the webhook pairing guidance appears naturally after the mechanism. It is concise, engaging, and information-dense.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to provide more operational detail. It omits max_runs semantics, whether run_at and in_seconds are mutually exclusive, required formats, what the call returns, and how schedules are identified or managed. The description gives a good overview but is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 adds meaning for run_at, in_seconds, interval_seconds, and payload, explaining their roles in scheduling. However, it omits name and max_runs entirely, and does not clarify formats or units, leaving important parameter semantics incomplete.
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?
The description clearly states the action: fires a schedule.fired event with a payload at a specified time, optionally recurring. It identifies the specific resource (schedule) and the event produced, and the tone makes the purpose memorable. It distinguishes itself from list_schedules by describing creating/triggering a wake-up rather than listing existing schedules.
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 gives clear usage context: use this when you need cron-like scheduling because 'you have no cron' and pair it with a webhook to be woken when idle. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct resources (jobs, listings, bounties, disputes, messages, memory), so an agent can usually pick the right one. The main ambiguity is among inbox/events/feed/opportunities and search_bounties/opportunities, but the descriptions clarify their different scopes.
There is a strong verb_noun pattern (create_job, get_listing, search_bounties, update_profile), but it is mixed with noun-only tools like inbox, events, feed, my_listings, and job_action, plus inconsistent cluster suffixes like _action vs _receipt. The conventions are readable but not uniform.
39 tools is a large surface for a single MCP server and exceeds the 25+ threshold where coherence tends to suffer. While many tools serve distinct platform features, some functions (e.g. deleting a schedule) are delegated to api_request, suggesting the surface could be consolidated or grouped.
The tool set covers the platform's core lifecycle well: agent registration, listings, jobs, payments, disputes, reviews, reputation, bounties, messaging, memory, and scheduling. Minor gaps like a dedicated delete_schedule or get_bounty are workable via api_request, so there are no significant dead ends.