Rhylthyme MCP Server

Validate a program

validate_program

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a schedule program before publishing or saving for invalid IDs, dangling or cyclic triggers, overlapping steps, missing resource constraints, and duration or instance errors.

Instructions

Check a program before publishing or saving it: ids, dangling or cyclic triggers, steps overlapping in a track, tasks with no resourceConstraint, durations, replicates/instances misuse. Every finding has a code, a message and a suggested fix. Pure computation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`program`	Yes	Program JSON: {programId, name, environmentType?, actors?, tracks: [{trackId, name, steps: [{stepId (unique program-wide), name, task?, duration, startTrigger, replicates?, choice?}]}], resourceConstraints: [{task, maxConcurrent}], metadata?}. duration: {type:'fixed', seconds} \| {type:'variable', minSeconds, maxSeconds, defaultSeconds} \| {type:'indefinite', defaultSeconds}; seconds are numbers or strings like '5m', '1h30m'. startTrigger: {type:'programStart'} \| {type:'programStartOffset', offsetSeconds} \| {type:'afterStep', stepId, offsetSeconds?, event?:'start', instances?:'each'\|'all'} \| {type:'afterStepWithBuffer', stepId, bufferSeconds} \| {type:'manual'}. Steps in one track never overlap; every task needs a resourceConstraint. Rules and examples: rhylthyme://guide/authoring; full schema: rhylthyme://schema/program.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`info`	No
`stats`	Yes
`valid`	Yes
`errors`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Pure computation' and adds the finding structure (code, message, suggested fix), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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?

Two sentences deliver the full purpose, a concrete list of checks, the output finding structure, and a purity guarantee. No filler; the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, many validation rules) and that an output schema exists, this description is adequate: it summarizes the checks, notes the finding format, and links to authoritative references (rhylthyme://guide/authoring, rhylthyme://schema/program) for deeper details. It does not leave critical decision-making gaps.

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%, with the program parameter already thoroughly documented (formats for durations, triggers, tracks, steps). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') plus resource ('program') and enumerates the exact validation dimensions (ids, triggers, overlaps, resourceConstraints, durations, replicates/instances). It clearly conveys validation semantics and distinguishes from siblings like calibrate_program or analyze_schedule, though it does not explicitly contrast with review_program.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states when to use the tool ('before publishing or saving it') which gives a clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the selection rationale mostly implied.

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