Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chronary

Chronary

Official
by Chronary
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_proposal

Send candidate meeting time slots to participant agents for accept, decline, or counter-proposal, then auto-resolve to the highest-scoring slot once all respond.

Instructions

Create a scheduling proposal — send a set of candidate time slots to one or more participant agents so they can accept, decline, or counter-propose. The organizer agent owns the proposal; once every participant responds, the system auto-resolves to the highest-scoring slot (or cancels if all decline). Requires an org-level API key. Pro plan only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotsYesCandidate time slots (up to 20)
titleYesShort description of what the meeting is about
expires_atNoAuto-cancel cutoff if unresolved
calendar_idYesCalendar the resolved event will be created on
descriptionNoLonger context/agenda
organizer_agent_idYesAgent ID proposing the meeting
participant_agent_idsYesAgent IDs invited to respond

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / expires_at / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / slots / items / properties / end_time / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / slots / items / properties / start_time / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / slots / items / properties / calendar_id / description
      Added value: +"Calendar to create the event on if this slot is chosen. Defaults to the proposal's top-level calendar_id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / slots / items / properties / end_time / description
      Added value: +"Slot end time (ISO 8601), after start_time"
    • addedInput schema / properties / slots / items / properties / start_time / description
      Added value: +"Slot start time (ISO 8601)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / slots / items / properties / weight / description
      Added value: +"Preference for this slot, 0–10 (higher = more preferred). Used to rank candidate slots when the proposal is resolved. Defaults to 1."
  3. First observedv1.2.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds real behavioral value: the auto-resolution rule once all participants respond, the cancellation-on-full-decline path, and the org-level-API-key/Pro-plan requirements. These are the kind of side effects and auth constraints annotations don't convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by behavioral and requirement details. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a write tool with a fully documented 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, resolution behavior, and access requirements completely. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including nested slot fields is fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'candidate time slots' and the scoring concept, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (Create) and resource (scheduling proposal), then defines the mechanism — sending candidate slots to participant agents for accept/decline/counter-propose. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like respond_to_proposal, resolve_proposal, and cancel_proposal.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Describes the full lifecycle (auto-resolves to highest-scoring slot, cancels if all decline) and the prerequisites (org-level API key, Pro plan), which tells an agent when this is the right entry point. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings to use for responding or resolving, so it loses the top score for lack of explicit alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools