Skip to main content
Glama
ruchitha-meenakshi

HR-ASSIST

by ruchitha-meenakshi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

schedule_meeting

Book a meeting for an employee using their ID, date/time, and topic. Returns a confirmation.

Instructions

Schedule a meeting for an employee.
:param employee_id: Employee ID
:param meeting_datetime: Date and time in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS)
:param topic: Topic of the meeting
:return: Confirmation message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYes
employee_idYes
meeting_datetimeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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 carries the full burden. It discloses only that a confirmation message is returned, saying nothing about whether invites/notifications are sent, permission requirements, conflict handling, or reversibility — all material for a scheduling mutation.

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?

Docstring-style and front-loaded, with the action stated first and params listed compactly. The ':return: Confirmation message' line is redundant since an output schema already exists, but the overall size is appropriate.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits essential context: permissions, whether attendees are notified, conflict behavior, and how the meeting relates to get_meetings/cancel_meeting. The output schema covers the return value, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it delivers the critical datetime format (ISO YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS) along with the fields' intent. 'Employee ID' is thin, but overall it compensates well for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Schedule a meeting for an employee'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_meetings or cancel_meeting, so an agent must infer placement from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., does the employee need to exist?), and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent gets no routing help against get_meetings, cancel_meeting, or send_email.

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