Create a cron schedule to run a function or webhook on a timer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Schedule name | |
| config | No | Action configuration (function_id or webhook URL) | |
| expression | Yes | Cron expression (e.g., '*/5 * * * *') | |
| action_type | Yes | Type of action to trigger |
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 indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the action of creating a schedule, such as handling duplicate names or validation of the cron expression. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.
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 create-schedule tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality clearly. It could elaborate on edge cases like duplicate names or response payloads, but the action is straightforward, and the schema fills in parameter details. Overall, it provides sufficient context for typical use.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all parameters, including the enum for action_type and the purpose of config. The description's mention of 'function or webhook' aligns with the schema but does not add new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'cron schedule', clearly stating the tool's function: running a function or webhook on a timer. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scalix_fn_invoke or scalix_events_publish, which handle immediate execution or event publishing.
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 tool's use case is implied: it is for scheduling recurring actions. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions such as immediate invocation versus scheduled triggering.
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.
Tools are grouped by service prefix and generally target distinct resources/actions. A few execution surfaces could be confused (sandbox_run vs computer_exec vs fn_invoke; build_create vs fn_deploy vs run_deploy), and storage_list is overloaded for both buckets and objects, but descriptions clarify the boundaries well.
The scalix_ prefix plus snake_case is used throughout, and most tools follow <service>_<verb>_<noun>. Minor deviations like scalix_search, scalix_status, and scalix_usage omit a service-domain qualifier, but the overall pattern is predictable and easy to navigate.
53 tools is a very large surface. While the server covers a broad multi-service cloud platform, the count falls well beyond the 25+ threshold and will likely feel overwhelming; many service areas could reasonably be split into separate servers or trimmed.
Several service lifecycles have obvious gaps: the KV store has get/list/set but no delete, storage has upload/download/list but no delete for objects or buckets, functions have deploy/list/invoke but no delete/update, and cron has create but no list/delete. These missing operations create dead ends for agents managing common resources.
