Update an existing cron job by specifying client ID, cron ID, and fields to modify.
Update a cron job
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | Fields to update | |
| cron_id | Yes | Cron job ID | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or reversibility. 'Update a cron job' only names the mutation and gives no behavioral detail beyond that.
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 short, but it mostly restates the tool name and provides no explanatory substance. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, so the structure does not add value.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque 'params' object, a single sentence is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what fields can be updated, what a successful update returns, or what happens if the cron_id or client_id does not exist.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 as the schema documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, and 'params' remains an unconstrained object with no hints about what fields are valid.
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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a cron job'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from cron_add, cron_delete, or cron_list, and it does not say which aspects of a cron job can be modified.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The verb 'Update' weakly implies the job must already exist, but there are no explicit directions about choosing this over cron_add, cron_delete, or cron_list, nor any mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.