cron_listList all scheduled WP-Cron events sorted soonest first to inspect upcoming WordPress cron jobs.
All scheduled WP-Cron events, soonest first.
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": "cron_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful ordering guarantee (soonest first), but says nothing about whether all registered hooks are returned, whether unscheduled events appear, or what fields each entry carries.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key fact (all events) and the ordering come first. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so it earns high but not top marks for structure.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin — an agent still lacks any sense of return shape (hook name, next run time, schedule) or result volume.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space re-explaining an empty schema.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: all scheduled WP-Cron events, plus a stated ordering (soonest first). It is clearly distinct from the sibling list tools (post_list, plugin_list, order_list), though it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name and description — an agent can infer 'use this to inspect cron schedules' but there is no statement of when to prefer this over related diagnostics/health_check tools, nor any exclusion or precondition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.