lucky_upsert_cron_jobCreate or update a scheduled cron job in Lucky using a cron expression and shell/HTTP command. Idempotent by name or key, ensuring no duplicate jobs.
Idempotent by name (or key). expression is a cron spec; command is the shell/http payload Lucky should run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| expression | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the idempotency mechanism (by name or key) and clarifying what expression and command mean. It does not describe update merge/replace behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile, so this is above the baseline.
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?
Two tight sentences, no filler, with the most important behavioral fact (idempotency) front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place and is immediately useful to an agent.
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 description is minimally viable: an agent knows the required fields are name, a cron expression, and the command payload. However, there is no explanation of key, type, or enabled semantics, no statement about how an update behaves when some fields are omitted, and no return-value information despite the lack of an output schema.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains expression and command, but leaves key, type, and enabled completely undefined. With six parameters and only two addressed, the semantic gap is significant.
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 title and description clearly state the tool creates or updates a Lucky cron job, with a specific verb and resource. The idempotency-by-name/key detail further distinguishes it from the sibling cron tools for deleting, enabling, running, and listing cron jobs.
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 this is the create/update operation for cron jobs, and the idempotency note suggests it can be used for both. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus siblings like lucky_delete_cron_job or lucky_set_cron_enabled, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.