View recent execution history for a schedule — status codes, response previews, and timing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of executions to return (max 50) | |
| schedule_id | Yes | Schedule UUID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates that the operation is read-only via the word 'View' and hints at return content, but it does not explicitly discuss safety, side effects, or limitations beyond 'recent'. The lack of an output schema means the description is the only source for expected response shape, which it partially covers.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output attributes. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the dash introduces the return details economically.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it views, the scope (per schedule), and key response elements. It doesn't explain the response structure or pagination beyond the limit param, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity, this is sufficient.
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 schema already documents both parameters fully — schedule_id is a UUID and limit has a default and maximum. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the word 'recent', which is already reflected in the limit parameter. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 a specific verb ('View') with a clear resource ('execution history') and scope ('for a schedule'), and lists the key content (status codes, response previews, timing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_schedule, check_schedule, and schedule_task.
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?
Usage context is implied by the name and description — it's for viewing past executions — but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The sibling context helps but the description itself does not elaborate.
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.