procli_schedule_listThe user's schedules: source, input, frequency, next run, last run (with its runId for procli_runs_get), spent this month, on/off. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manage | No | Where to manage schedules | |
| schedules | Yes | The user's schedules |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "manage": {
+ "description": "Where to manage schedules",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schedules": {
+ "description": "The user's schedules",
+ "items": {
+ "description": "A repeating run",
+ "properties": {
+ "enabled": {
+ "description": "Whether the schedule is active",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "frequency": {
+ "description": "daily or weekly",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Schedule id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "input": {
+ "description": "Input sent on every run",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "monthlyCap": {
+ "description": "Most all runs can cost per month, in USD",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "nextRunAt": {
+ "description": "Next run, Unix time in ms",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "pausedReason": {
+ "description": "Why it is paused",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "runCap": {
+ "description": "Most one run can cost, in USD",
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "scheduleText": {
+ "description": "The schedule in words",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scraper": {
+ "description": "Source id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "spentThisMonth": {
+ "description": "Spent this month, in micro-USD",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "time": {
+ "description": "Time of day, HH:MM",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "timezone": {
+ "description": "IANA time zone",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "Source name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "weekday": {
+ "description": "0-6 for weekly schedules (0 = Sunday)",
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schedules"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior — and it does, with the cost model ('Free') and the runId handoff to procli_runs_get. The field list overlaps the existing output schema, but the chaining and cost hints are genuine additions.
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?
It is a single compact fragment with no filler, and the resource identifier is front-loaded before the returned fields. The telegraphic colon-list style is efficient but slightly cryptic as a standalone sentence.
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?
With zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that owns return-value detail, the description only needs to establish what is listed and any non-obvious behavior — which it does via the field list, cost note, and runId linkage. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.
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 identifies the resource ('the user's schedules') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (source, input, frequency, next run, last run, spend, on/off), which lets an agent predict the payload without opening the output schema. It does not state an explicit verb or contrast itself against the sibling list/mutate tools (procli_schedule_create/delete), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'Free' signals there is no cost to calling it, and the parenthetical '(with its runId for procli_runs_get)' hints at a follow-up chain to the runs tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or when-not/alternative guidance for choosing this over other listing tools.
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.