Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BitPull

BitPull

by SamuealPK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bitpull_schedule_save

Create or update a scheduled task that sends a reminder or runs a model prompt on a one-time, hourly, daily, weekday, or weekly schedule in your computer's time zone.

Instructions

Create a scheduled task, or change one (give its id). kind "reminder" only notifies the person (free); kind "run" has a model answer the prompt at that time and saves the answer as a new chat (a paid model costs credits each time). when: {type:"once",at:<ms since 1970>} | {type:"hourly",minute} | {type:"daily",time:"HH:MM"} | {type:"weekdays",time} | {type:"weekly",day:0-6,time}, in this computer's time zone. Tasks run while the BitPull app is open; a missed one runs when it opens.

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": "bitpull_schedule_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe task to change; omit to create one
kindNoreminder: only a notification, free. run: a model answers the prompt at that time and the answer becomes a new chat (paid models cost credits)
whenNo
modelNorun: the model (id from bitpull_chat_models, paid: true for paid models); omit for the network's choice
titleNoShort name shown on the card
promptNorun: the prompt for the model. reminder: the text of the notification
enabledNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the credit cost model for 'run' tasks, that paid models charge per execution, that reminders are free, that execution is bound to the app being open, and that missed runs are caught up at next launch. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not derive from the schema or annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Create-vs-update and the kind/cost distinction are front-loaded, then the when-format grammar, then the execution caveat. The inline enumeration of when variants largely duplicates the schema's anyOf structure, which is the one bit of redundancy, but it is compressed into a single line rather than wasted prose.

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 7-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key decisions: which kind, when format, timezone, cost, and offline behavior. It leaves ambiguous whether an update merges with or replaces existing fields and what happens if required fields like prompt are omitted for a 'run' task, which matters for a partial-update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it states that the schedule times are interpreted 'in this computer's time zone', which the schema's daily/weekly/hourly variants do not specify. It also restates the enum semantics of kind and the 'give its id' convention for updates, tightening interpretation of the id parameter.

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 first sentence names a specific verb pair and resource ('Create a scheduled task, or change one') and states the discriminator (give its id), so an agent can tell create from update immediately. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling listing/deleting/running tools, so differentiation from those is only implied by the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear selection guidance for the main branch point: kind 'reminder' only notifies and is free, kind 'run' invokes a model and costs credits. It also sets expectations about execution ('tasks run while the BitPull app is open; a missed one runs when it opens'), which tells the agent when this scheduling mechanism is appropriate. It stops short of saying when to prefer a sibling such as running the task immediately instead of scheduling it.

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