jade-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

근무일정 등록 저장

jade_commit_schedule

DestructiveIdempotent

Saves a prepared work schedule using its preview token, then rereads the calendar to confirm times changed while work types stayed the same. Call only after the user explicitly approves the preview.

Instructions

jade_prepare_schedule 이 준 토큰으로 근무일정을 저장하고, 달력을 다시 읽어 시각이 바뀌고 근무유형은 그대로인지 확인한 결과를 돌려준다. 결재 없이 바로 반영되므로 사용자가 미리보기를 보고 명시적으로 승인했을 때만 호출한다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "jade_commit_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	jade_prepare_schedule 이 돌려준 토큰

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: writes take effect immediately with no approval workflow, and the tool re-reads the calendar to verify times changed while work type stayed the same. That tells the agent the side effect is real and that a verification result comes back.

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?

Two sentences: the first covers what it does and what it returns, the second covers the approval gate that governs invocation. No filler, and the gating condition is placed where an agent will read it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value as a verification result comparing changed times against unchanged work type. For a one-parameter commit tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including that it comes from jade_prepare_schedule. The description restates the same fact without adding format or lifetime details, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('근무일정을 저장') and pins the input's provenance to jade_prepare_schedule, so the agent knows exactly which operation this is. The added post-save verification clause further distinguishes it from the prepare sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition: call only after the user has seen the preview from jade_prepare_schedule and explicitly approved. It also names the alternative (the prepare step) and the reason to gate the commit on it.

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