Akiflow MCP Server

schedule-task

Schedule a task on your calendar by specifying its UUID, date, optional time, and duration. Ensures the task is placed at the correct time slot.

Instructions

Schedule a task on the calendar at a specific date/time

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "schedule-task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Task UUID
`date`	Yes	Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`datetime`	No	Specific time (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-01-26T10:00:00.000Z)
`duration`	No	Duration in minutes (default: 30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Schedule a task', which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a new calendar event is created, if the task is modified, or what happens if already scheduled). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description lacks details such as return behavior, what 'schedule' entails (e.g., creating a calendar event vs. setting a due date), and how it relates to 'add-task-to-timeslot' or 'unschedule-task'. The user/agent is left guessing.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 schedules a task on a calendar at a specific date/time, with verb 'schedule' and resource 'task on calendar'. However, it does not distinguish from similar tools like 'add-task' or 'add-task-to-timeslot' which may overlap in functionality.

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?

The description implies usage for scheduling an existing task (requires 'id') at a specific time, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'add-task-to-timeslot' or 'unschedule-task'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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