Revel Digital MCP Server

Official

by RevelDigital

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

getschedules

Retrieve schedules from your Revel Digital account. Filter by ID, device, group, or paginate results.

Instructions

Gets schedules in an account.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "getschedules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Optional schedule Id to filter by
`page`	No	Optional number of page to return
`take`	No	Optional number of items to return
`group_id`	No	Optional schedule group Id
`device_id`	No	Optional schedule Id to filter by
`group_name`	No	Optional group name to filter by

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.20Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'gets', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, whether results are paginated, or how multiple filters interact. Missing transparency for a tool with 6 optional parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal help to the agent. A more structured description with key details would be appropriate.

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 tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination behavior, filtering logic, or what the response contains. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's capabilities from this description.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No explanation of how parameters like page/take work together or how multiple filters combine.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Gets schedules in an account.' This is a clear verb+resource, but it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like getschedulebyid (singular) or other schedule-related tools. The phrase 'in an account' is vague and doesn't capture the filtering capabilities indicated by parameters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getschedulebyid or other schedule retrieval methods. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server