workbooks_add_workbook_scheduleCreate a scheduled export for a workbook by passing its ID and schedule details. Use it to automate recurring Sigma workbook exports.
Create a scheduled export for a workbook. See Sigma docs for schedule body schema.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| workbook_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the artifact is a recurring 'scheduled export'; it says nothing about required permissions, whether the schedule starts immediately, cadence behavior, or side effects, and defers entirely to external docs.
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?
Two short front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is a bare pointer to external documentation rather than actionable content, which limits its value but keeps the definition tight.
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?
For a mutation tool with a nested, undocumented request body, the description omits the schema of 'body' entirely and relies on an out-of-band doc lookup. Having an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the input side is inadequately covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The free-form 'body' object (additionalProperties: true) is the entire substance of the request and the description only points to 'Sigma docs', leaving the agent unable to construct a valid payload from the definition alone.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a scheduled export for a workbook.' This is clear and distinguishable from the list/delete schedule siblings and the report-schedule variant, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like workbooks_create_report_schedule, workbooks_export_workbook and workbooks_list_workbook_schedules present, the agent gets no signal on when this tool is the right choice versus a one-off export or a report-level schedule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.