remove_cronRemove a cron trigger from a site's deployed function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | URL path of the cron to remove | |
| slug | Yes | site slug whose cron to remove |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / path / descriptionAdded value: +"URL path of the cron to remove"Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"site slug whose cron to remove"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 declare destructiveHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that removal is from a 'site's deployed function,' but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as reversibility or permission requirements. With annotations carrying the safety signal, the description provides minimal added transparency.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with verb and resource. Perfectly concise for its purpose.
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 is adequate for a simple removal tool, but it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of cron), side effects, or success/error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but operational context is thin.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description offers no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 (remove), the resource (cron trigger), and the context (from a site's deployed function). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_cron and list_crons.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cron or list_crons. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.