Pressable MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is read-only (implied but not explicit), doesn't mention pagination behavior, nor error conditions like 'site not found'. For a listing operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently worded with no redundancy, earning its place. However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, it is inappropriately brief—missing parameter documentation that should have been included to achieve minimal viability.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should provide comprehensive parameter and behavioral context. It fails to explain the 'id' parameter semantics or disclose return structure, leaving significant gaps the agent must guess at.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. While the phrase 'for a specific site' implies the ID refers to a site identifier, it does not explicitly state 'The id parameter is the site ID' or describe the expected format (UUID, slug, etc.). Critical semantic information is missing.

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 specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'cron jobs' scoped to 'a specific site'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pressable_list_sites or pressable_list_backups. However, it could strengthen differentiation by explicitly contrasting with other site-specific list operations.

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 guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., site existence verification), or when to prefer other cron-related operations (if any existed). The description states what it does but not when an agent should invoke it.

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