Skip to main content
Glama

run_schedule

Trigger a deployed app's schedule to run now and receive a run ID and outcome, so you can track manual executions and detect skipped overlapping runs.

Instructions

Call a schedule's path now (a manual run); answers 202 at once.

    Returns ``{run_id, outcome}``: ``running``, or ``skipped_overlap`` when
    the previous run is still out. Read the result with
    ``list_schedule_runs``. Refusals: 404 ``schedule.not_found``, 409
    ``schedule.service_not_running`` (stopped, failed, degraded or
    mid-cutover), 409 ``schedule.restart_required``.
    

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "schedule_name": "<schedule_name>"
    },
    "name": "run_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName (or row id) of an existing deployed app — only kind 'service' can be exposed: ``share_service``/``add_domain`` refuse a model or database with 422 ``*.kind_unsupported``, while the remove tools just find nothing to undo.
schedule_nameYesSchedule name: lowercase letters, digits and '-', 1-32 characters, starting with a letter (e.g. ``morning``); the app receives it as ``X-Nerdit-Schedule``.
idempotency_keyNoCaller-chosen key: a retry with the same key replays the first result instead of acting twice. Omit and a fresh key is minted per call, so each call acts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.3

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses async semantics (202 returned immediately), the exact return shape {run_id, outcome} including the skipped_overlap case when a previous run is still out, and three concrete refusal codes with their meanings. The remaining gap is authorization/permission requirements and whether overlap skipping is configurable, which an agent cannot infer.

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 core action and its 202/immediate-return nature are front-loaded, followed by return values and then refusals in a compact, scannable structure. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by fully describing the returned fields and their possible values, plus failure modes. For a 3-parameter action tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters including idempotency_key retry semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — trigger a schedule's path immediately as a manual run — and immediately distinguishes itself from the read path by naming list_schedule_runs. An agent can tell this apart from add_schedule/remove_schedule/list_schedule_runs without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear trigger context ("call ... now") plus an explicit follow-up route: read the outcome with list_schedule_runs. It does not state exclusions or preconditions (e.g. that the app must be a running service), which the 409 refusal codes only imply.

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