Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
batman-mcp

batman-mcp

by tadev77
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

batman_create_unavailability

Create a developer unavailability record for the Batman system. Provide developer ID, dates, level, and description to block scheduling during incidents.

Instructions

Criar uma nova indisponibilidade

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": {
      "developerId": "<developerId>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>",
      "level": "<level>"
    },
    "name": "batman_create_unavailability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYes
endDateYes
startDateYes
descriptionYes
developerIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention side effects, required permissions, validation rules, or implications of creating an unavailability. 'Create' implies mutation, but nothing else is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single vague phrase fails to provide value and does not earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a create operation with 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or any operational context, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description provides no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain date formats, the meaning of 'level', or relationships between fields, so the agent has no help beyond raw parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Criar uma nova indisponibilidade' (Create a new unavailability) is essentially a literal restatement of the tool name. It identifies the action (create) and resource (unavailability) but adds no specificity about what constitutes an unavailability or how it relates to sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., developer must exist), or how it relates to alternatives like batman_get_unavailabilities. The description offers no usage context whatsoever.

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