list_schedulesWhen tests run by themselves: every schedule in the workspace, or those of one test or project.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_schedules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testId | No | Only this test | |
| projectId | No | Only this project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the key behavioral fact that omitting filters returns the whole workspace, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what a schedule record contains.
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?
A single compact sentence covering scope and both filters with no filler. The opening clause is somewhat awkwardly worded, but it is front-loaded with the domain meaning before the filtering detail.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: both filters and the unfiltered default. No output schema exists, but the return type (schedules) is evident from the purpose.
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%, and the schema's parameter descriptions ('Only this test', 'Only this project') are as informative as the description's mention of the same filters. The description adds the default behavior when both are omitted, which is modest added value; baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.
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 (schedules) and its scope (all in the workspace, or narrowed to one test or project), and the opening phrase 'When tests run by themselves' glosses what a schedule is. It never uses an explicit verb like 'list', so the agent relies partly on the tool name, but the resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from create_schedule/delete_schedule.
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?
It implies usage through the filter framing ('those of one test or project') but never states when to prefer this over another tool or when it is inappropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so guidance is only inferable.
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.