Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chronary

Chronary

Official
by Chronary
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

respond_to_proposal

Submit a participant agent's decision to an open scheduling proposal, choosing accept, decline, or counter; auto-resolves when all respond.

Instructions

Submit a response (accept / decline / counter) on behalf of one participant agent to an open proposal. An "accept" requires the slot id from the proposal; a "counter" can suggest alternative slots. When all participants have responded the proposal auto-resolves — no separate resolve call needed in the normal flow. Requires an org-level API key. Pro plan only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoOptional note for the organizer
agent_idYesParticipant agent responding
responseYesDecision from this agent
proposal_idYesProposal to respond to
counter_slotsNoAlternative slots when response is "counter"
selected_slot_idNoRequired when response is "accept"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / counter_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 / counter_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 / counter_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 / counter_slots / items / properties / end_time / description
      Added value: +"Slot end time (ISO 8601), after start_time"
    • addedInput schema / properties / counter_slots / items / properties / start_time / description
      Added value: +"Slot start time (ISO 8601)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / counter_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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (writes, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds information the annotations cannot convey: org-level API key requirement, Pro-plan gating, and the auto-resolution lifecycle behavior. It also flags the per-response conditional obligation (accept needs a slot id), so no hidden mutation semantics are left undisclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by per-response requirements, lifecycle behavior, and prerequisites in descending order of importance. No filler or restated field names.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, response-dependent inputs, and the post-call lifecycle outcome (auto-resolve), which is the key thing an agent must anticipate. It stops short of describing what the call itself returns, which would be the only remaining gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all six parameters including the conditional requirements for selected_slot_id and counter_slots. The description restates the accept/counter conditions but adds nothing about slot weighting, limits (maxItems 20), or time formats, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (submit a response) + resource (an open proposal) + actor scope (on behalf of one participant agent), with the three allowed responses enumerated inline. This clearly separates it from resolve_proposal, cancel_proposal, and create_proposal in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent that a resolve call is unnecessary because the proposal auto-resolves once all participants respond — that is a real routing decision against the sibling resolve_proposal. It also states prerequisites (org API key, Pro plan), though it never states when responding would be inappropriate (e.g., after resolution or cancellation).

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