Skip to main content
Glama

VibeKit Create Schedule

vibekit_create_schedule

Create a recurring coding task that the AI runs automatically on a cron schedule (e.g. a weekly SEO pass). Use for 'every Monday, do X to my repo' requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cronYesCron expression, e.g. '0 9 * * 1' for every Monday at 9am UTC
nameNoFriendly name for the schedule (optional)
repoYesGitHub repo as 'owner/repo'
taskYesWhat to do on each run, e.g. 'Improve SEO and page speed'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoThe created schedule: id, name, and cron expression.
errorNoError message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "data": {
      +      "description": "The created schedule: id, name, and cron expression."
      +    },
      +    "error": {
      +      "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "ok"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent, but description does not add behavioral details like required permissions or side effects beyond creation. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a concrete example, no wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple creation tool with an output schema; lacks details on return values but schema fills the gap.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions; description adds no extra meaning beyond the example cron expression. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states 'Create a recurring coding task that the AI runs automatically on a cron schedule' with a concrete example, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_schedule or list_schedules.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('every Monday, do X to my repo') and context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.