OTP

Create a process schedule

create_schedule

Schedule a process to run automatically on a recurring cadence -- hourly, daily, or weekly -- in a named timezone. This is real autonomy: once created and enabled, OTP runs the SOP on its own and the run spends the organization's wallet, with no human in the session. Call list_processes first and pass the exact agent_external_id and sop_title it returned. Cadence is limited to hourly/daily/weekly by design; there is no raw cron and no weekdays-only option, so say so plainly rather than approximating one. Requires a funded wallet and an active API key.

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": {
      "agent_external_id": "<agent_external_id>",
      "sop_title": "<sop_title>",
      "cadence": "<cadence>"
    },
    "name": "create_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hour`	No	Hour of day, 0-23, in the schedule's timezone. Required for daily and weekly; ignored for hourly. 10 means 10am.
`name`	No	Label for the schedule. Defaults to the SOP title.
`minute`	No	Minute of the hour, 0-59. Defaults to 0.
`sop_id`	No	SOP id when list_processes returned one; more precise than matching on title
`cadence`	Yes	How often it runs
`weekday`	No	Day of week for weekly, 0=Sunday through 6=Saturday. Defaults to Monday.
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone the hour is read in, e.g. 'America/New_York'. Defaults to America/New_York. Ask rather than assume when the user's timezone is not already known.
`sop_title`	Yes	Exact title of the SOP to run, as list_processes returned it
`agent_external_id`	Yes	The seat that owns the process, exactly as list_processes returned it (e.g. 'AGT_RADAR')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the schedule runs unattended, spends the organization's wallet, and involves no human in the session. Combined with the funded-wallet and API-key prerequisites, an agent knows the real cost and side effects before invoking.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then preconditions, then constraints, then hard requirements. Every sentence carries actionable content with no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, and cadence limits well. It does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a schedule id for later update_schedule/delete_schedule calls), which is the one remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by insisting the identifiers come verbatim from list_processes and by bounding cadence to hourly/daily/weekly with no cron or weekday-only approximation. It does not restate per-parameter formats, but the schema already does that thoroughly.

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 verb and resource (schedule a process) plus the scope of the operation (recurring cadence, named timezone), which cleanly separates it from update_schedule and delete_schedule in the sibling list. The autonomy framing ('OTP runs the SOP on its own') further pins down what is actually being created.

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?

Gives an explicit pre-call step ('Call list_processes first and pass the exact agent_external_id and sop_title it returned') and hard prerequisites ('Requires a funded wallet and an active API key'). It also tells the agent what not to attempt ('no raw cron and no weekdays-only option... say so plainly rather than approximating one').

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

All OTP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?