Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp-server

by me.ceki
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create Schedule

create-schedule

[Auth Required] Create a new agent schedule (paid action: schedule_create). Pass API key via X-Agent-Key header or Authorization: Bearer.

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": {
      "kal_id": "<kal_id>",
      "settings": "<settings>",
      "start": "<start>"
    },
    "name": "create-schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO 8601)
startYesStart date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO 8601)
kal_idYesCalendar ID to attach the schedule to
privateNoWhether the schedule is private
settingsYesSchedule settings (events, days, hours, contacts, skills, links, etc.)
timezoneNoTimezone (e.g. Europe/Moscow, UTC)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auth requirements and that the action is paid, but does not describe results, errors, or side effects.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads important context (auth and cost). Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (multiple parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description lacks important details like return format or constraints on the settings object.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond authentication details.

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 tool creates a new agent schedule. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update-schedule or delete-schedule.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies creation but does not provide context-specific usage or exclusions.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
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