Retrieve all configured time specs from NetBox to see available schedules and intervals. Use the optional pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call.
Lists time specs configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| STARTFROMKEY | No | Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lists' and 'wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecs' imply a read-only retrieval operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, permissions, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. It provides useful context but leaves notable behavioral details unspecified.
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?
A single sentence communicates the resource, action, and underlying API wrapper with no filler. The essential information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
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?
This is a simple list operation with one optional, well-documented parameter, so it is not severely underserved. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description leaves return-value structure and the full pagination flow unspecified, making it adequate but not complete.
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%: the only parameter, STARTFROMKEY, is already documented as an optional pagination cursor. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('time specs configured on the NetBox system'), and the plural 'time specs' plus the mention of the system scope distinguishes it from singular/group sibling tools like get_time_spec and get_time_spec_group. It also anchors the behavior to a concrete NBAPI operation.
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 the tool is for listing all time specs configured in NetBox, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as get_time_spec or get_time_spec_groups, nor does it state when to prefer one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.