APVISO MCP Server

list_schedules

Retrieve all automated scan schedules for recurring security testing on the APVISO platform, including daily, weekly, biweekly, and monthly configurations.

Instructions

List all your scan schedules. Schedules automatically run scans on a recurring basis (daily, weekly, biweekly, or monthly). Requires Business or Enterprise tier.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_schedules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the Business/Enterprise tier requirement (access control) and explains what schedules do (automatically run scans on recurring basis), which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, or response format details that would be helpful for a list operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second adds crucial context about what schedules are and tier requirements. Every sentence earns its place with valuable information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides good context: what it lists, what schedules are, and tier requirements. It could be more complete by mentioning typical response structure (array of schedule objects) or pagination behavior, but covers the essentials well.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns and prerequisites.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'scan schedules', specifies the scope 'all your', and distinguishes from siblings like get_schedule (singular) and create_schedule. It explicitly defines what schedules are, adding useful context.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to see all recurring scan schedules) and implicitly distinguishes from get_schedule (single schedule) and create_schedule (creating new). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like list_scans for actual scan results.

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

Deploy Server