record_scheduleCall after creating (or changing) the recurring 'Run Agent Chef.' task in your own scheduler, with a one-line description, e.g. 'Claude scheduled task, daily 9:00 and 18:00 America/Los_Angeles'. Lets the app stop reminding you and shows the owner that the loop is automated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cleared | No | true if the schedule was removed | |
| description | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral effects: the app stops reminding the user and the owner sees the loop is automated. However, it omits the 'cleared' behavior implied by the schema parameter, so an agent may not realize the tool can also record removal of a schedule. This is a meaningful transparency gap.
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 compact and front-loaded with the call condition, followed by a useful example and the benefit. Every sentence adds information. It could be slightly tighter, but there is no unnecessary fluff.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main use case well. However, it ignores the 'cleared' parameter and its corresponding use case (schedule removal), leaving an agent without enough context to fully understand all valid invocations. The absence of return-value info is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, but the cleared gap keeps this at a 3.
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 only 50%. The description compensates for the required 'description' parameter by specifying 'one-line description' and giving a concrete example, which adds value beyond the schema's minLength constraint. However, the optional 'cleared' parameter is never mentioned, and the description does not clarify its role or when to set it.
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 states a specific action ('record') tied to a specific resource (the recurring 'Run Agent Chef.' task) and explains the purpose ('stop reminding you... shows the owner'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like run_agent_chef or dismiss_setup_checklist, so it misses the top score but is clearly not a tautology.
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?
Provides an explicit trigger condition: call after creating or changing the recurring 'Run Agent Chef.' task in your own scheduler. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls one point short of a 5.
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 target a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. The main confusable pair is run_agent_chef vs next_actions, which both return the due-action checklist and operating instructions, differing only by trigger context. propose_recipes vs add_candidates are also related but clearly separated by phase (initiating a cycle vs appending during feedback).
The overwhelming majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, update_, set_, add_, record_, remove_), which is highly predictable. Minor deviations include next_actions being a bare noun phrase rather than get_next_actions, and favorite_recipe using 'favorite' as a verb instead of something like toggle_favorite.
At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to select from, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The domain is genuinely broad, but several utility and meta tools (dismiss_setup_checklist, record_schedule, get_connected_agents, get_instructions) and overlapping entry points (run_agent_chef, next_actions) inflate the count and could be consolidated without losing capability.
The full weekly lifecycle is covered end-to-end: propose, vote, feedback, add candidates, lock in, shop, order, cook, rate, and mark done. Recipe, member, ingredient, and preference management all have solid get/update/create coverage. Minor gaps include no way to delete a recipe, remove a candidate from an active ballot, or cancel a week beyond reopen_voting, but these are work-aroundable and don't create dead ends.