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 |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns (status codes, response previews, timing) but does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'view'), define the time window for 'recent', or mention pagination or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not comprehensive.
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 conveys the purpose and key output details. There is no wasted content, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 relative simplicity and complete schema documentation, the description is nearly adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description should more thoroughly explain the return format and ordering, which it only partially does with 'status codes, response previews, and timing.' It also omits any mention of prerequisites or authorization, though this is a minor gap for a history viewer.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (schedule_id and limit), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does provide context that the limit relates to 'recent' history and the schedule_id identifies the schedule, but this is marginal. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'view' and the resource 'recent execution history for a schedule', plus specific details about the return content (status codes, response previews, timing). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_schedule, check_schedule, and schedule_task, which have different purposes.
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 this tool (to view execution history) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. The context is clear from the purpose, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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.