Modify an existing Semaphore UI schedule by project and schedule ID with updated fields like name, active status, cron timing, or task parameters.
Updates schedule. PUT /project/{project_id}/schedules/{schedule_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| schedule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing about the destructive implication that an update may overwrite existing schedule configuration, and gives no permission or auth context. The string-encoding note is useful but does not address the main behavioral risk.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, with no filler. The content is efficiently delivered even if it is under-specified.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with a large nested request body, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description should at least warn about replacement semantics, identify that body is the full ScheduleRequest payload, and point to set_schedule_active for active toggling. It does none of these, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it safely.
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%, so the description must compensate for a fully undocumented ScheduleRequest body. It only says to 'supply API fields in body' and that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, which adds one useful encoding constraint but leaves the many body fields, enums, and nested task_params semantics unexplained.
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 says 'Updates schedule' and gives the PUT endpoint, so the verb and resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as set_schedule_active, validate_schedule, create_schedule, or delete_schedule, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus set_schedule_active for toggling active state, validate_schedule for checking a schedule, or update_template for template-level changes. The only context given is the HTTP endpoint, which does not tell the agent in which situations this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.