Skip to main content
Glama

create_assignment

Create single-day or recurring planning assignments for users by specifying dates, times, and weekdays. Generates slots automatically for each active day.

Instructions

Create a planning assignment with human-friendly parameters.

This tool builds the JSON payloads internally — you only need to provide dates (YYYY-MM-DD), times (hour/minute integers), and weekday names. It mirrors the Flutter setSingleOutForm / setMultiOutForm logic.

Two modes:

  • Single-day: start_date == end_date, weekdays omitted or empty. Creates one slot per user on that date.

  • Recursive: start_date < end_date, weekdays specifies which days of the week are active. Creates one slot per user per active weekday.

Args: id_activity: Activity ID (from list_activities) user_ids: List of user IDs to assign (from activity participants) titre: Assignment title (e.g. "Morning shift") start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. "2026-06-23") end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format. For single-day, use same as start_date. start_hour: Start hour 0-23 (e.g. 8 for 08:00) start_minute: Start minute 0-59 (e.g. 0) end_hour: End hour 0-23 (e.g. 14 for 14:00) end_minute: End minute 0-59 (e.g. 0) weekdays: Active weekday names for recursive mode. Case-insensitive. Full names or 3-letter abbreviations: monday/mon, tuesday/tue, etc. Omit or leave empty for single-day assignment. notes: Optional notes text

Returns: JSON string — human-readable summary with group ID, slot count, and per-slot details (slot_id, day_of_year, user_id, times).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo
titreYes
end_dateYes
end_hourYes
user_idsYes
weekdaysNo
end_minuteYes
start_dateYes
start_hourYes
id_activityYes
start_minuteYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds JSON payloads internally, mirrors Flutter logic, and returns a human-readable JSON summary. However, it does not mention idempotency, conflict handling, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a create operation.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points for modes, and a clean args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy. The length is justified by the tool's complexity (11 parameters).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, two modes, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter formats, mode logic, return value structure (JSON string with group ID and per-slot details). It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents each parameter with formats (YYYY-MM-DD, hour/minute integers), examples, and behavioral context (e.g., weekdays case-insensitive, omit for single-day). This adds immense value beyond the bare schema.

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 description clearly states it creates a planning assignment with human-friendly parameters and explains two modes (single-day vs recursive). Although sibling 'add_assignment' exists, the description does not explicitly differentiate when to use this versus alternatives, but the purpose is specific and well-articulated.

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 description provides clear conditions for using single-day vs recursive modes (based on date equality), but it does not guide when to use this tool over alternatives like 'add_assignment' or 'modify_assignment'. In a context with many sibling tools, this omission reduces guidance for tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sebastien-VZN/axomind-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server