Sairen

cron_trigger_oracle

Schedule delayed or recurring webhook triggers for future execution. Manage jobs by inspecting status or canceling active triggers.

Instructions

    [Cost: $0.0005 USDC (delay) / $0.0100 USDC (recurring) on Base & Solana] Autonomous cron scheduler and webhook trigger engine.
    Enables stateless AI agents to schedule future execution wakeups and recurring monitoring jobs.

    Actions & Parameters:
    - 'delay': One-shot delayed webhook. Params: {"webhook_url": "https://...", "delay_seconds": 5..604800, "payload": {...}}
    - 'interval': Recurring cron webhook. Params: {"webhook_url": "https://...", "interval_seconds": 60..604800, "max_iterations": 1..100, "payload": {...}}
    - 'status': Inspect trigger status and delivery log. Params: {"job_id": "cron_..."} [Free]
    - 'cancel': Cancel active trigger. Params: {"job_id": "cron_...", "secret_key": "sk_cron_..."} [Free]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`action`	No	delay
`params`	No
`payment_signature`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it discloses pricing per action, which actions are free, parameter ranges, and that the tool triggers webhooks. It does not explain payment_signature mechanics or retry/delivery behavior, but it is substantially more transparent than a minimal mutation description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-organized: cost and purpose first, followed by a compact action/parameter list. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the structure lets an agent quickly locate the relevant action without wading through prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is strong for a moderate-complexity tool and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, it omits how the required payment_signature should be obtained or supplied for paid actions, which is a meaningful operational gap for an agent trying to invoke delay or interval successfully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema is generic (action, free-form params, payment_signature), so the description becomes the only source of parameter meaning. It specifies the action values and the exact param keys and ranges for delay, interval, status, and cancel. The only notable gap is that the top-level payment_signature parameter is never explained in relation to the stated costs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific capability — 'Autonomous cron scheduler and webhook trigger engine' — and enumerates the four concrete actions (delay, interval, status, cancel) with their effects. This is far more specific than a generic verb and clearly distinguishes the tool from scheduling-adjacent siblings like create_webhook_listener.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to use it: stateless AI agents that need future wakeups or recurring monitoring jobs. It also separates free lifecycle actions (status/cancel) from paid scheduling actions. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server