timer_statusCheck a timer by the id returned by timer_schedule: status (pending|delivering|delivered|failed|cancelled), attempts, last error. Returns found=false for an unknown id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The timer id returned by timer_schedule. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to establish safety. It adds valuable behavior details: the possible status values, that it returns attempts and last error, and that unknown ids produce found=false. This goes beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the action and the second clarifies the not-found behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the return fields, valid statuses, and error handling for unknown ids. The annotation and schema cover safety and parameter validation, so nothing important 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 single parameter 'id' is already fully documented in the schema with the same description ('The timer id returned by timer_schedule'). The description repeats this context without adding syntax or format details, so it provides minimal extra value beyond the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'a timer' by the id from timer_schedule, listing possible statuses which distinguishes it from sibling timer_* tools like timer_cancel and timer_verify_origin.
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?
Clearly states the tool is for checking a timer using the id returned by timer_schedule, providing context that it should be used after scheduling. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context and the instruction 'by the id returned by timer_schedule' imply its usage window.
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.
Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose (counters, cron, DNS, email, fixtures, webhooks, KV, locks, name checks, regex, timers, timezone, URL checks). There is no functional overlap; even closely related tools like timer_schedule and cron_next are clearly separated by descriptions.
The dominant naming pattern is <resource>_<action> (e.g., inbox_create, kv_get, lock_acquire, tz_convert). A few tools deviate, such as counter_next and cron_next (resource_qualifier), fixture_rows (resource_noun), and request_tool (verb_noun), but these are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.
At 24 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 range, leaning heavy. The tools cover many independent utility categories, each with a minimal set of operations, but the overall count feels slightly excessive for a single server, though it is justified by the broad scope.
The server provides complete lifecycles for its functional areas: KV (set/get/list/delete), inbox (create/poll/delete), locks (acquire/release), timers (schedule/status/cancel/verify). Each utility is self-contained, and the request_tool offers a path for extending the surface. No obvious gaps or dead ends within the intended domain.