Creates a scheduler object in Security Director Cloud with name, description, start and stop dates, and schedules. Use this to define time-based policies for firewall rules.
Create a new scheduler object. Body typically includes name, description, start-date1, stop-date1, schedules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create' implying mutation, but no details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or what the API does with duplicate names. Minimal transparency beyond the action itself.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second enumerates typical body fields. No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness for quick agent parsing.
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?
Lacks important context: no return value description (output schema absent), no mention of required permissions, no validation rules for body fields, no indication of idempotency or conflict handling. For a CRUD create tool, more completeness is expected, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (body), described generically as 'JSON request body matching...'. Description adds value by listing typical fields (name, description, start-date1, stop-date1, schedules), giving the agent concrete guidance on what to include, elevating it above the schema's vague description.
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?
Description clearly states the tool creates a new scheduler object and lists typical fields (name, description, dates, schedules), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list, get, update, or delete schedulers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'create' siblings like sdcloud_create_anti_spam_profile, but the resource name 'scheduler' is distinct.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_scheduler for modifications, list_schedulers for retrieval). No prerequisites, after-effects, or when-not-to-use information. The description assumes the agent already knows the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.