deleteScheduleDelete a schedule. Owners may delete their own schedules; team superadmins may delete any schedule on agents in the current team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent's unique identifier | |
| schedule_id | Yes | The schedule's unique identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds valuable behavioral context about authorization and scope boundaries, which is not available in annotations or schema. This goes beyond what structured fields provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The core action 'Delete a schedule' is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds the necessary permission model. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two fully documented parameters and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is complete. It supplies the critical ownership/superadmin authorization context that an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations. No additional behavioral or return-value detail is necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both agent_id and schedule_id already described as unique identifiers. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, but the permission context implies agent_id identifies the owning agent. Per calibration, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete a schedule.' It also differentiates from sibling tools like createSchedule, updateSchedule, and listAgentSchedules by explicitly naming the delete action. The permission scoping ('Owners may delete their own schedules; team superadmins may delete any schedule...') adds additional precision about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when the tool can be used by specifying the authorization requirements: schedule owners and team superadmins. It does not explicitly name alternatives like updateSchedule for modifications, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand this is the deletion path. No misleading or exclusionary guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.