run_task_nowDeliver immediately, outside the schedule. THIS COSTS ONE CREDIT per attempt, exactly like a scheduled firing, and a timeout or unreachable host is retried up to three times — so one call can cost up to three credits. Use it to test a destination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id (UUID), as returned by create_task or list_tasks. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credit cost per attempt, the retry behavior (up to three retries on timeout/unreachable host), and the maximum possible cost of three credits. This is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention prerequisites like task state, but the critical side effect and failure behavior are covered.
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 three sentences: purpose, cost/retry behavior, and use case. Each sentence carries distinct, necessary information. The all-caps 'THIS COSTS' draws attention but is not overly verbose. The overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, retries, and a usage scenario. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the task must be in an active state or whether this affects the existing schedule, but these are not critical given the simple interface.
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 schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (id, a UUID) is self-explanatory. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline score 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 title and description make clear this fires a task immediately, outside the schedule, as a one-time action. The verb 'deliver' is slightly less specific than 'run' or 'execute', but combined with the title and the explicit contrast with scheduled firing, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.
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 explicitly says 'Use it to test a destination,' giving a concrete use case. It also states 'outside the schedule,' implying it is for immediate, unscheduled delivery rather than for modifying task configurations. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.