list_schedulesList active recurring/one-off bill schedules for the linked wallet — same data as the AbaPay app and Telegram/WhatsApp "show my schedules". Read-only, no PIN required. Returns each schedule's id — pass that to cancel_schedule to remove one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | AbaPay MCP API key. NOT needed when the connector is authorized via OAuth — omit it entirely in that case. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: no PIN required and parity with the AbaPay app and Telegram/WhatsApp 'show my schedules' output. That reconciles the tool with surfaces the user already knows.
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?
Three tight clauses, front-loaded with what is listed, then the safety/permission profile, then the actionable id handoff. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be cut without losing routing or behavioral value.
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 no output schema, the description partially carries the return burden by disclosing that each schedule comes with an id usable by cancel_schedule. It doesn't enumerate the remaining returned fields (amount, date, frequency), so there is a minor gap for a list tool.
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 single api_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the OAuth omission case, so the description needn't repeat it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what structured data provides.
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?
Specific verb + resource + scope: 'List active recurring/one-off bill schedules for the linked wallet.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling cancel_schedule by stating the id handoff relationship, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another schema.
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?
Names the downstream alternative (cancel_schedule) and the condition that links them — pass the returned id to remove a schedule — which effectively tells the agent when to use this tool. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use, but the discovery-then-cancel flow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.