Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

agent-cronjob

by ai.agentasy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change job settings

update_job
Idempotent

Change a job in place: signature_in_body (true = triggers also carry cronjob_signature in the JSON body, for platforms that drop the X-Cronjob-* headers; applies from the next attempt sent) and/or max_runs. Raising max_runs on a job completed with max_runs_reached reactivates it (next run = next occurrence after now, no catch-up); there is no separate resume for completed jobs. Returns the updated job. (REST: PATCH /v1/jobs/{id})

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesjob_<ULID> returned by create_job
max_runsNoNew run limit (1 … 1000000), must be greater than run_count; null = unlimited. ≤ run_count → 400. Paused/disabled jobs keep their status.
management_tokenNoact_mt_… management token. Optional if the MCP HTTP request carries Authorization: Bearer <management_token>.
signature_in_bodyNoDefault false. true = every trigger body also carries cronjob_signature {version, timestamp, delivery_id, signatures[], signature} (HMAC over "v1b:{timestamp}:{delivery_id}:" + canonical JSON of the body without cronjob_signature). Use it when your webhook platform drops the X-Cronjob-* headers (e.g. Grok Bot routines).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_runs
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "New run limit (1 … 1000000), must be greater than run_count; null = unlimited. ≤ run_count → 400. Paused/disabled jobs keep their status."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish it as a non-destructive idempotent write, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the change applies from the next attempt, raising max_runs on a completed job reactivates it with next run = next occurrence after now and no catch-up, and it returns the updated job. This is exactly the deferred-effect and side-effect detail an agent needs before mutating.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the operation and its two mutable fields, with consequences trailing in parentheses; every clause carries information. The nested parenthetical is dense enough to read as one long sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, it discloses return value ('the updated job'), timing of effects, and reactivation semantics. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens when neither optional field is supplied, but nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: signature_in_body takes effect from the next delivery, and max_runs increases can reactivate a completed job. Those timing and state-transition semantics go beyond the parameter docstrings.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a job in place') and enumerates the exact mutable fields (signature_in_body and/or max_runs), plus the REST route. It partially distinguishes from siblings by noting 'there is no separate resume for completed jobs', which routes the agent away from resume_job, though it never names pause_job/resume_job explicitly for the non-completed case.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for each field: use signature_in_body when the platform drops X-Cronjob-* headers, and raise max_runs when a job is stalled at max_runs_reached. It implicitly excludes the resume path, but stops short of naming the alternative tool the agent should pick for a merely paused job.

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

All agent-cronjob toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources