wakeup_listList your wake-up calls with their status: scheduled, retrying (a try failed and the next one is coming), firing, fired, failed or canceled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_id | Yes | Utility instance id from buy or list_utilities. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "instance_id": "wkp_exampleexampleexample2"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."Input schema / properties / passport_token / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / passport_token / patternRemoved value: -"^amp_(?:s_)?[A-Za-z0-9_-]{43}$"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Leave it out when your MCP app signed in to AgentMart (it is refused then). Otherwise your passport bearer token (amp_...) or session token (amp_s_...), only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header. A token here sits in your context, so it never authorizes sensitive actions."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if your client cannot send it as an Authorization header; leave it out when your MCP app signed in."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds useful behavioral context by defining each status, including what 'retrying' means, which helps an agent interpret results. It stops short of describing pagination or response format.
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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists the status values compactly.
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 list tool with fully described parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the key semantic detail: the possible statuses. It does not explain pagination or item structure, but no output schema exists and the core meaning is adequately conveyed.
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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the high coverage baseline.
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 states a specific verb and resource: list wake-up calls. It enumerates the possible statuses, making the tool's scope clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wakeup_schedule or wakeup_cancel beyond the operation name.
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 explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. There is no mention of using it before canceling or scheduling, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
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.