Create, list, update, or delete scheduled agent runs that execute unattended at a recorded mode, and check automation bindings for tasks.
Manage scheduled agent runs. Creating an automation grants STANDING, UNATTENDED authority at the mode recorded at creation time. At most 20 automations are retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that creating an automation grants standing unattended authority at the creation-time mode and that at most 20 automations are retained. It still omits key behavioral context for update/delete reversibility, auth needs, action-specific effects, and scheduling semantics.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the two most important behavioral warnings about authority and retention.
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?
This is a complex multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description gives useful safety context for creation and a retention limit, but does not cover the action inventory, update/delete consequences, required action selection, or scheduling parameters, leaving substantial gaps for correct invocation.
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 reported as 100%, so the schema is the primary source for parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, such as action semantics, cron/interval behavior, mode/model selection, or max_runs handling, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear resource and domain: scheduled agent runs. This distinguishes it from most zcode_* siblings, which cover status, sessions, chat, files, and settings. However, the verb 'Manage' is broad and the description never enumerates the supported actions (list, create, update, delete, check_binding).
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description does not explain conditions for choosing this tool over related zcode_* tools, leaving usage to inference from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.