timps-swarm

timps_calendar_optimizer

Re-design a noisy calendar by time-blocking deep work, batching meetings, protecting maker time, and adding commute/exercise buffers. Emits an ICS patch and a focus-mode script.

Instructions

Re-design a noisy calendar: time-block deep work, batch meetings, protect maker time, add commute/exercise buffers, and emit an ICS patch and a focus-mode script.

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": "timps_calendar_optimizer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	No	Plain-English task or context for the agent.
`language`	No	Primary programming language (default: python).	python

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral outputs (ICS patch and focus-mode script), which indicates it produces files rather than directly mutating state. Yet it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and lists specific actions and outputs. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two simple params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of the tool's purpose and outputs. It lacks details on the exact form of the ICS patch or focus-mode script, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 'request' and 'language'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Re-design' with a clear resource 'calendar' and lists concrete actions (time-block deep work, batch meetings) and outputs (ICS patch, focus-mode script). It differentiates from siblings by its unique calendar-redesign scope, even though no alternative is explicitly named.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'noisy calendar' implies use when the calendar is cluttered, giving a contextual trigger. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no indication of when not to use. This is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server