Skip to main content
Glama

schedule_checkin_for_groups

Give every client in one or more groups the same recurring weekly check-in (day, time, optional questions). Members who already have a weekly check-in are skipped. (confirm-gated: without confirm it previews who would get it, writing nothing)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "groupIds": "<groupIds>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_checkin_for_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
groupIdsYesGroup ids from list_client_groups
allowDuplicatesNoAlso give it to a member who already has the same thing over the same dates (default: skip them)
excludeClientIdsNoMembers to leave out this time (client User _ids)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the basic write operation indicated by the annotations, the description provides vital behavioral traits: members who already have a check-in are skipped, and the tool offers a preview mode when `confirm` is false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is highly concise and packs several important logical caveats into two sentences. While effective, the behavioral warning about 'confirm' is slightly parenthesized and could arguably be more front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the input structure, the description is highly complete. It covers the 'who', 'what', and the operational constraints, which is all that is necessary when no output schema is defined.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Since the schema coverage is 80%, the schema provides most of the semantic detail (e.g., types of questions, time formats). The description primarily summarizes the fields rather than adding unique semantic meaning to them.

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?

The description clearly states the primary function: to give clients in specified groups a recurring weekly check-in. It is specific about the target (group members) and the action (scheduling the check-in).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides critical usage guidelines by detailing the 'confirm-gated' nature of the tool. The agent is explicitly told that omitting 'confirm' results in a preview, which dictates the appropriate workflow.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.