List this tenant's triggers (optionally filtered by tool), each with next_unix, last_run_id and last_status (schedule), url/verify/unverified (event), or url/name/verify with no secret (webhook).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | Only triggers on this tool name. | |
| tenant_key | No | The key `signup` returned. Required only when this connection carries no Authorization: Bearer header -- when both are present, the header wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It describes the output structure for schedule, event, and webhook triggers, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, error conditions, or pagination. The description adds context but could be more explicit about its non-mutating nature.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists the specific return fields for different trigger types. It avoids fluff and effectively conveys the essential information without redundancy.
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?
The description covers the output structure for all trigger types, which is critical given the absence of an output schema. It also mentions the optional filter. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but for a simple list operation this is likely acceptable. The tenant_key parameter behavior is well-documented in the schema, so nothing essential 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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (tool filter and tenant_key auth handling). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.
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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (this tenant's triggers), and mentions optional filtering by tool. It distinguishes from sibling trigger tools by the verb 'list' vs get/set/fire, but does not explicitly name alternatives. The inclusion of return-field details for different trigger types makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage for listing triggers but does not explicitly state when to use this over host.trigger.get or other trigger tools. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that this is the list operation while get retrieves a specific trigger. Minimal guidance is provided.
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.