Skip to main content
Glama
jupiterbak

AYX-MCP-Wrapper

by jupiterbak

add_schedule_to_collection

Add a schedule to a collection in Alteryx by specifying the collection ID and schedule ID to automate workflow execution.

Instructions

Add a schedule to a collection by its ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collection_idYes
schedule_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the logic to add a schedule to a collection by verifying existence and calling the Alteryx collections API.
    def add_schedule_to_collection(self, collection_id: str, schedule_id: str):
        """Add a schedule to a collection by its ID"""
        try:
            collection = self.collections_api.collections_get_collection(collection_id)
            if not collection:
                return "Error: Collection not found"
            schedule = self.schedules_api.schedules_get_schedule(schedule_id)
            if not schedule:
                return "Error: Schedule not found"
            contract = server_client.AddScheduleContract(schedule_id=schedule_id)
            api_response = self.collections_api.collections_add_schedule_to_collection(collection_id, contract)
            return pprint.pformat(api_response)
        except ApiException as e:
            return f"Error: {e}"
  • MCP server registration of the tool, which wraps and delegates to the handler in AYXMCPTools.
    @self.app.tool()
    def add_schedule_to_collection(collection_id: str, schedule_id: str):
        """Add a schedule to a collection by its ID"""
        return self.tools.add_schedule_to_collection(collection_id, schedule_id)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or what happens if the schedule is already in the collection. It lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it clarify parameter semantics. For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by its ID', implying both parameters are IDs, but doesn't explain what 'collection_id' and 'schedule_id' represent, their formats, or where to obtain them. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the parameter names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and target resources ('a schedule to a collection'), specifying it's done 'by its ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_schedule_from_collection' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'add_workflow_to_collection', which follows a similar pattern but with a different resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing collection and schedule), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'add_workflow_to_collection'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jupiterbak/AYX-MCP-Wrapper'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server