Skip to main content
Glama

pylon_snooze_issue

Delay an issue notification until a specified future time to manage support workflows and prioritize tasks effectively.

Instructions

Snooze an issue until a specific time

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe issue ID
snooze_untilYesTime to snooze until in RFC3339 format

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler implementation in PylonClient that performs the API POST request to snooze the issue until the specified time.
    async snoozeIssue(
    	id: string,
    	snooze_until: string,
    ): Promise<SingleResponse<Issue>> {
    	return this.request<SingleResponse<Issue>>('POST', `/issues/${id}/snooze`, {
    		snooze_until,
    	});
    }
  • src/index.ts:424-437 (registration)
    MCP tool registration including schema, description, and thin handler that delegates to PylonClient.snoozeIssue and formats the JSON response.
    server.tool(
    	'pylon_snooze_issue',
    	'Snooze an issue until a specific time',
    	{
    		id: z.string().describe('The issue ID'),
    		snooze_until: z.string().describe('Time to snooze until in RFC3339 format'),
    	},
    	async ({ id, snooze_until }) => {
    		const result = await client.snoozeIssue(id, snooze_until);
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result.data, null, 2) }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the pylon_snooze_issue tool: issue ID and snooze until time.
    {
    	id: z.string().describe('The issue ID'),
    	snooze_until: z.string().describe('Time to snooze until in RFC3339 format'),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('snooze') but lacks details on effects (e.g., whether it changes issue status, sends notifications, or is reversible), permissions needed, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' as 'The issue ID' and 'snooze_until' as 'Time to snooze until in RFC3339 format'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description 'Snooze an issue until a specific time' clearly states the action (snooze) and resource (issue), with the time constraint adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pylon_update_issue', which might also handle issue modifications, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this is the only way to snooze issues or if other tools like 'pylon_update_issue' might offer similar functionality, nor does it mention prerequisites such as issue state or permissions required.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JustinBeckwith/pylon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server