TeamStorm MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

teamstorm_schedule_task_closure

Idempotent

Schedule a TeamStorm task to close automatically at a specified time by setting a target status, with timezone-aware scheduling and workflow-triggered closure.

Instructions

Save closure intent as soon as the user requests a timed closure. close_at must include a timezone. One schedule per task; changed inputs replace it. With a configured workflow, the daemon closes only from its trigger status when due. Without a workflow, the daemon only prepares status context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`close_at`	Yes
`task_key`	Yes
`target_status`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`state`	No	pending
`close_at`	Yes
`revision`	No
`task_key`	Yes
`checked_at`	No
`workflow_id`	No
`target_status`	Yes
`current_status`	No
`workflow_revision`	No
`workflow_fingerprint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.3.0Sep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / state / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "pending",
-  "context_ready"
-]New value: +[
+  "pending",
+  "context_ready",
+  "waiting",
+  "completed",
+  "cancelled",
+  "suspended"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / workflow_fingerprint

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / workflow_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / workflow_revision

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

Addedv0.2.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial runtime behavior: close_at must include a timezone, only one schedule exists per task, changed inputs replace it, and daemon behavior depends on whether a workflow is configured. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the idempotent replace semantics.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by timezone, replacement, and daemon behavior facts. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler. It could use light structuring for the conditional workflow behavior, but it is efficient overall.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a write tool with no parameter descriptions, the description covers the scheduling lifecycle, replacement semantics, and workflow-dependent daemon behavior. However, the exact meaning of target_status and task_key is left implicit, and the phrase 'only prepares status context' is vague. An agent would likely need additional context for fully correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter documentation burden. It explains close_at (timezone) and replacement semantics, but it does not define task_key or target_status, leaving two of three required parameters effectively undocumented. This is only partial compensation for a sparse schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Save closure intent') and a condition ('as soon as the user requests a timed closure'), clearly identifying this as a scheduling/write operation. It distinguishes itself from the closure read/cancel siblings like teamstorm_get_task_closure and teamstorm_cancel_task_closure, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever the user requests a timed closure, and implies immediacy with 'as soon as'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use teamstorm_cancel_task_closure instead, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server