get_schedulePark operating hours — opening and closing times for a theme park over the coming weeks. Pass a PARK entity_id from list_destinations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | A PARK entity id from list_destinations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "entity_id": "epcot"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns data 'over the coming weeks', which provides temporal context beyond annotations. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundant wording. The description is front-loaded with the resource and provides a clear instruction. Every word adds value.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (hours over weeks) and how to get the entity_id. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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% and the description restates the parameter guidance ('Pass a PARK entity_id from list_destinations') without adding new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('get' is implied by title) and resource: 'Park operating hours — opening and closing times for a theme park over the coming weeks'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_wait_times' and 'list_destinations'.
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 a clear usage instruction: 'Pass a PARK entity_id from list_destinations'. This implies a prerequisite to call list_destinations first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
Most tools have distinct, well-documented purposes, but several overlap or are explicitly redundant: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as discovery entry points, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The thematic split between theme-park, data-lookup, prediction-market, and memory tools also forces agents to navigate unrelated clusters.
Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_destinations, get_wait_times, remember, resolve_entity), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Within families the patterns are consistent, but across the set the conventions are inconsistent and sometimes reverse the verb/noun order, making the surface harder to predict.
35 tools is heavy, and the server is named Themeparks yet only 4 tools actually relate to theme parks. The remaining 31 tools span Pipeworx data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, creating a bloated and misaligned scope. A tightly scoped theme-park server would need far fewer tools, and a general data research server would not be named Themeparks.
For the implied theme-park domain, the surface is thin: list destinations, get entity metadata, get schedule, and get wait times cover basic lookups but omit search, attraction details beyond waits, historical data, pricing, dining/show info, and park updates. The non-theme-park tools are extensive, but they do not complete the server's apparent stated purpose.