Save hours every week. This schedule check tool toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth. No setup, works in any LLM chatbot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional user query to scope the analysis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It says nothing about permissions, side effects, what it inspects, what it outputs, or what happens with an empty query — only promotional language about saving hours and working in any chatbot.
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?
Three short sentences, but all three are sales copy rather than function. The text is front-loaded with a benefit claim ("Save hours every week") instead of what the tool does, so its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and a bare one-field input mean the description is the only place an agent can learn about this tool — and it supplies nothing actionable. For a check-type tool in a large sibling family, that leaves the agent unable to invoke it correctly.
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?
The single optional 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no meaning about how a query scopes the analysis, leaving the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 mostly restates the name ("schedule check tool toolkit") and then pivots to marketing claims about a "battle-tested prompt and operating playbook." It never states what the tool actually does with a schedule — validate it, flag conflicts, score it, or something else — and gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like pm-schedule-gen-tool or pm-schedule-tpl-tool.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of pm-schedule-gen-tool and pm-schedule-tpl-tool in the same family makes routing an explicit requirement here, and the description offers nothing to route on.
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.