Plori

Official

by plori-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

Schedule agent run

schedule_run

Destructive

Defer a single agent run to a future time using a delay or exact timestamp. Pass a prompt, and the run appears in history when it fires.

Instructions

Schedule a ONE-SHOT deferred run of an agent: it will be invoked once, later, with the given prompt, billed like any run, and appears in list_runs when it fires. Provide either delay_seconds (relative) or fire_at (an RFC3339 timestamp). For a recurring schedule, use create_workflow with a cron trigger instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prompt`	Yes	The message to send the agent when the schedule fires.
`fire_at`	No	Fire at this RFC3339 timestamp (mutually exclusive with delay_seconds).
`agent_id`	Yes	The agent's UUID.
`session_id`	No	Optional thread/session id to deliver the scheduled run into.
`delay_seconds`	No	Fire this many seconds from now (mutually exclusive with fire_at).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`prompt`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`fire_at`	No
`agent_id`	Yes
`attempts`	Yes
`metadata`	No	Arbitrary JSON owned by the producing engine.
`thread_id`	No
`created_at`	Yes
`last_error`	No
`last_fired_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.16.0Sep 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "agent_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "attempts": {
+      "maximum": 2147483647,
+      "minimum": -2147483648,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fire_at": {
+      "type": [
+        "null",
+        "string"
+      ]
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "last_error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "last_fired_at": {
+      "type": [
+        "null",
+        "string"
+      ]
+    },
+    "metadata": {
+      "description": "Arbitrary JSON owned by the producing engine."
+    },
+    "prompt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "thread_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "agent_id",
+    "kind",
+    "status",
+    "prompt",
+    "attempts",
+    "created_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026
Removedv0.3.0Jul 26, 2026
First observedv0.1.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the run is invoked once, later, billed like any run, and appears in list_runs when it fires. These side effects go beyond the annotations, though the destructiveHint=true annotation is not clarified; this is a minor gap, not a contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: one-shot semantics, side effects, timing options, and the sibling alternative. No filler.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the remaining operational context: what kind of run it schedules, how it is billed/visible, how to express the time, and when to use an alternative.

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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters and their mutual exclusivity, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing 'either delay_seconds or fire_at.' This is the appropriate baseline for a 100% schema-coverage tool.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule a ONE-SHOT deferred run of an agent.' It also differentiates from recurring schedules by explicitly naming create_workflow with a cron trigger as the alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It tells the agent when to use this tool (one-shot deferred run) and when not to (recurring schedules: 'use create_workflow with a cron trigger instead'). It also clarifies the two timing options, delay_seconds or fire_at.

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