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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description details what information is returned. However, it does not mention edge cases, error behavior, or limitations, such as what happens if neither parameter is provided.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses an em dash to enumerate the specific outputs. It is concise with no redundant words, striking an ideal balance between brevity and informativeness.
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 tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the full range of behaviors. It only covers the single-schedule case, failing to mention that providing agent_id alone lists all schedules for that agent, and it does not state what happens when no parameters are supplied. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema to clarify return values.
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 has complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, and the agent_id description in the schema even notes the alternative 'list all' behavior that the main description omits.
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 ('check') and resource ('cron schedule'), clearly stating what it does: shows active status, next run time, and execution count. It is distinct from sibling tools like cancel_schedule and schedule_task, which focus on cancellation and creation.
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 when to use the tool (to check schedule status) but does not explicitly contrast it with get_execution_history or mention when not to use it. The schema hints at listing all schedules via agent_id, but the description itself offers no usage guidance beyond the core purpose.
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 operation: scheduling, canceling, checking status, and retrieving history. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the four tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: schedule_task, cancel_schedule, check_schedule, get_execution_history. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
With four tools, the server is well-scoped for a focused task scheduler. Each tool covers a necessary operation without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
Core lifecycle is covered: create, cancel, check status, and view history. Missing an update operation and a list-all-schedules function, but users can work around these by canceling and re-creating schedules.