Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_add_trigger

Attach event or schedule triggers to an agent so it runs when matching events occur or periodically, with optional project scoping, cron, and interval settings.

Instructions

Add an event trigger or schedule to an agent. Event triggers fire when a matching event occurs. Schedules run periodically. A schedule's runs work for project; without it they inherit the project of an office that serves exactly one, and otherwise run outside any project (and cannot draft from a project's accounts).

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_agents_add_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cronNoCron expression for schedule type (e.g. '0 7 * * *' = daily at 7am, '0 */6 * * *' = every 6h, '0 9 * * 1' = Monday 9am). Takes precedence over interval_ms.
typeYesTrigger type
filterNoJSON filter to match event payload (e.g. '{"module":"crm"}')
projectNoSchedule type: project id or slug the scheduled runs work for. The agent's office must serve it. Omit to use the office's only project, if it has exactly one.
agent_idYesAgent ID
event_nameNoEvent name to listen for (required for event type, e.g. 'reminder.fired', 'data.changed')
cooldown_msNoMin time between event triggers in ms (default: 60000)
interval_msNoInterval in ms for schedule type (e.g. 3600000 = 1h). Use cron instead for time-based scheduling.
goal_overrideNoOptional goal override for scheduled runs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose non-obvious semantics — the single-project inheritance fallback and the consequence that runs outside a project 'cannot draft from a project's accounts' — which is genuine value. However, it says nothing about what is returned on success, whether duplicate triggers are rejected, permission requirements, or how the trigger later gets removed.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler or repetition of the tool name. The final project sentence is dense and syntactically tangled ('inherit the project of an office that serves exactly one'), which slightly hurts scannability but the content is substantive rather than padding.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and project scoping but leaves the return contract, error modes, and duplicate-handling behavior entirely unaddressed. Adequate to start a call, incomplete for an agent that needs to know what it gets back.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the cron/interval precedence and the project fallback is already documented in the schema, warranting the baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema by spelling out the downstream consequence of running without a project, but it adds nothing for event_name, filter, cooldown_ms, or goal_override.

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?

The description opens with a concrete verb+resource: 'Add an event trigger or schedule to an agent', and immediately distinguishes the two trigger types ('Event triggers fire when a matching event occurs. Schedules run periodically.'). It never names the sibling that removes or lists triggers, so an agent must infer from name alone that kernel_agents_remove_trigger is the inverse operation.

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?

Usage context is implied through the event-vs-schedule explanation and the project-scoping paragraph, which tells the agent when the project parameter matters. There is no explicit 'use this when…' framing, no stated prerequisites (e.g., the agent's office must serve the project), and no guidance pointing to list_triggers or remove_trigger as the follow-up operations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools