set_alarmCreate or update a smart home alarm with a 24-hour HH:MM time and optional repeat days to schedule daily or weekly wake-ups.
Create a new alarm or update an existing one. Specify time in HH:MM format and optionally which days to repeat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Alarm ID (omit to create new) | |
| name | Yes | Alarm name | |
| time | Yes | Time in HH:MM format (24h) | |
| enabled | No | Enable/disable (default: true) | |
| repetition | No | Days to repeat |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / patternAdded value: +"^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$"Input schema / properties / repetition / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / time / patternAdded value: +"^([01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d$"v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds the time format. However, it does not explain update behavior, whether updates overwrite fields, timezone handling, or other side effects beyond the annotations.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted language, and the core action is front-loaded before the format details.
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?
Given the rich schema, annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and format. It could be fuller about create-vs-update usage and update side effects, but the schema fills most parameter gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including id semantics, defaults, and the repetition object. The description restates the time format and optional repeat days but adds little beyond the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: create/update an alarm. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_alarms and delete_alarm by the action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries.
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 usage is implied by 'Create a new alarm or update an existing one,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_alarms or delete_alarm, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.