scheduled_tasksInventory Windows scheduled tasks or Linux systemd timers and cron directory entries without returning task action commands. Use for read-only scheduling audits.
Inventory Windows scheduled tasks or Linux systemd timers and cron directory entries without returning task action commands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: task action commands are deliberately omitted from the results, which matters for both security sensitivity and what the agent can expect back.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resources, followed by the redaction qualifier. Every clause earns its place with no padding.
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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It covers platforms, scope and the redaction caveat; only the limit parameter is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.
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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'limit' parameter. However, the parameter is a trivial optional integer constrained by min/max, so it is largely self-explanatory from the schema alone; this lands at the baseline rather than below it.
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 verb (inventory) and the exact resources covered (Windows scheduled tasks, systemd timers, cron directory entries). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like startup_programs and list_services, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 implied by the scope — an agent can infer this is the tool for scheduled task/timer enumeration — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus startup_programs or list_services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.