Skip to main content
Glama
GethosTheWalrus

Temporal MCP Server

by GethosTheWalrus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

describe_schedule

Retrieve detailed configuration, runtime state, recent executions, and upcoming action times for a Temporal schedule by its schedule ID.

Instructions

Get detailed configuration and runtime information about a schedule, including its spec, action, state, recent executions, and upcoming action times

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceNoTemporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default
schedule_idYesThe schedule ID to describe

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / namespace
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+  "enum": [
+    "default"
+  ],
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.9.0
  3. Removedv1.5.0
  4. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return contents (config, runtime state, recent executions, upcoming action times), which is genuinely useful, but it omits that this is a non-mutating read, says nothing about permissions, and says nothing about how many executions or how far ahead the 'upcoming' times extend.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields without padding or repetition. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload, which is the main gap an output schema would have filled. It could still say more about scope/limits, but it is adequate to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both schedule_id and namespace are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or namespace semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a schedule) and enumerates what is returned: spec, action, state, recent executions, upcoming action times. This clearly separates it from list_schedules and from the describe_workflow/describe_activity siblings, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the surrounding sibling tools (list_schedules, pause_schedule, etc.). An agent can infer this is the read/inspect operation, but nothing is stated.

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