Check the status of a cron schedule — is it active, when does it next run, how many times has it executed?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Alternatively list all schedules for this agent | |
| schedule_id | No | Schedule UUID from registration |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned information (status, next run, count) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or permissions. The verb 'check' implies safety, but it's not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output aspects. No wasted words.
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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks error-condition details, but for a status-check tool with no side effects, it is reasonably complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter explanation beyond what the schema already provides; the schema itself gives meaningful descriptions for both parameters.
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 checks cron schedule status with specific aspects: active, next run time, and execution count. This distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_schedule, schedule_task, and get_execution_history.
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?
The description implies usage for checking schedule status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_execution_history for detailed past runs). It gives context but no exclusions or direct comparisons.
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 targets a distinct aspect of cron schedule management: create, cancel, check status, and view history. There is no overlap between these operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: cancel_schedule, check_schedule, get_execution_history, schedule_task. The pattern is predictable and clear.
Four tools is well-scoped for a cron scheduling server, covering the core lifecycle without unnecessary bloat. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary purpose.
The toolset covers create (schedule_task), read (check_schedule), delete (cancel_schedule), and history (get_execution_history). The only notable gap is the lack of an update operation, but users can work around this by canceling and recreating a schedule.