list_cronsList cron triggers for a site's deployed function. Each cron is (path, schedule, lastRunAt).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | site slug whose cron triggers to list |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"site slug whose cron triggers to list"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be read-only. The description adds the output format (path, schedule, lastRunAt), which is useful but not critical beyond annotations. No behavioral contradictions.
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 succinct sentences: first sentence states the action, second sentence describes the output. No unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness.
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?
Given the simple structure (1 param, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what each entry contains. However, it implicitly assumes a deployed function exists, which could be clarified, but overall it's complete enough.
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%, with the parameter 'slug' described as 'site slug whose cron triggers to list'. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.
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 tool lists cron triggers for a site's deployed function, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource ('cron triggers for a site'). It also describes the output format (path, schedule, lastRunAt), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_cron or remove_cron.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cron or remove_cron, or other list tools. The description is purely descriptive of the action without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.