Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RBPaaS MCP Server

RBPaaS MCP Server

by mm-gtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_schedules

Retrieve schedules for a specified date range, with optional user ID filtering, to see agent assignments and availability.

Instructions

スケジュール一覧を取得する。

Args: start_date: 開始日 (YYYY-MM-DD形式、必須) end_date: 終了日 (YYYY-MM-DD形式、必須) user_id: ユーザーIDでフィルタ (UUID)

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": {
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_schedules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNo
end_dateYes
start_dateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only fetch ('取得') but does not mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. The parameter list is about syntax, not behavior.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is redundant with the schema but useful for clarity. No unnecessary prose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the response contains, but it does not. It also lacks context about the schedule domain or any usage scenarios. For a simple retrieval tool, this is a notable gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies date format (YYYY-MM-DD), marks start/end dates as required, and clarifies user_id as a filter with UUID type. Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so this compensation is valuable.

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 tool retrieves a list of schedules ('スケジュール一覧を取得する'), which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools by resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools). The description only lists parameters, not usage context or exclusions.

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