Retrieve scheduling requests to review and manage appointments. Filter by status, date, or custom criteria to locate specific requests.
List scheduling requests
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | TQL filter string (e.g., "createdAt:>=2024-01-01") | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| pageSize | No | Number of results per page (default: 50, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to provide a read-only or safety profile, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It merely restates the operation name ('List') and gives no information about pagination behavior, filtering semantics, side effects, or return characteristics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief ('List scheduling requests') and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise. It lacks any structural features such as separate sentences for scope, usage conditions, or payout details, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without information about the response shape, pagination details, or how this list relates to the create/get/cancel siblings. The three parameters are fully documented in the schema, which helps, but the overall definition is still thin for a tool with filtering and status options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage: filter is defined as a TQL string, status has an enum of four values, and pageSize has min/max and a default. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation 'List' on the resource 'scheduling requests', making it obvious this is a collection-read tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like timezest_scheduling_get (singular fetch), timezest_scheduling_cancel, and timezest_scheduling_create_request, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb+resource combination is sufficiently clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezest_scheduling_get for retrieving a single request or timezest_scheduling_create_request for creating one. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are mentioned. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.