alga-psa-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

alga_schedules_list

Read-only

List schedule entries one page at a time, filtered by user or date range, to review availability and planned work without modifying records.

Instructions

List schedule entries, one page at a time. Filter by user or date range.

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": "alga_schedules_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`user_id`	No
`end_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD or an ISO 8601 date-time with offset.
`start_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD or an ISO 8601 date-time with offset.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read operation, so the description's main added value is 'one page at a time,' which signals pagination. It doesn't disclose sort order, default page size, whether pagination metadata is returned, or timezone handling for dates — meaningful gaps for a list endpoint.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than a model of tight completeness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a five-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what and how to filter but leaves default behavior (no filters = all entries), ordering, and pagination details implicit. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by indicating that user_id and the date parameters are filters. However, it adds nothing about page/limit semantics beyond 'one page at a time' and nothing about the date format flexibility that the schema alone documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List schedule entries') plus a pagination behavior, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, but the resource noun is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

'Filter by user or date range' implies the main usage pattern, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over a search or get tool, and no mention that all parameters are optional (listing everything by default).

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

Deploy Server