create_scheduled_runCreates a recurring evaluation schedule from a run template, disabled by default until explicitly enabled.
Create a recurring evaluation schedule from a run template. New schedules remain disabled unless enabled is explicitly true; enabling can trigger future external evaluation activity and costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true; the description earns credit for explaining the actual mechanics behind that risk — disabled-by-default creation and that enabling causes future external evaluation activity and costs. It still doesn't cover permissions or what happens to the created schedule if enabling fails, but the risk-relevant behavior is surfaced.
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 sentences, no filler, with the creation semantics first and the risk-bearing caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 destructive, open-world mutation tool it covers the key risk, but with no parameters and no output schema the description never explains how the run template is identified or what the created schedule reference looks like. Adequate but leaves a real gap around inputs and the return value.
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 schema declares zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description references an "enabled" flag and a run template that are not present in the schema at all, leaving the agent to guess where those inputs come from. That is useful semantic content but creates a mismatch with the empty parameter list.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a recurring evaluation schedule") plus the source object ("from a run template"), which cleanly separates it from list_scheduled_runs, get_scheduled_run, and update_scheduled_run. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the create verb does the distinguishing work.
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?
It gives a concrete usage condition: the schedule is inert unless enabled is explicitly true, so an agent knows creating is a safe default and enabling is the deliberate step. It stops short of naming alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., that a template must exist first), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.