central-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_dispatches

List active and completed background dispatches shared across processes. Filter by status or timestamp to catch failed runs and advance failure-watch watermarks.

Instructions

List active and recently completed background dispatches, including those started by other central-mcp processes (shared state via ~/.central-mcp/dispatches.db).

status (optional): filter to one of running / complete / error / timeout / cancelled, or the alias failed — anything that ended badly (error, timeout, or complete with ok=false; cancelled is deliberate and excluded).

since (optional): ISO 8601 timestamp; only dispatches whose finished_at is strictly later are returned (still-running rows are unaffected by this filter).

Together these back the resident-agent failure watch without central-mcp holding subscriber state: call list_dispatches(status="failed", since=<watermark>), alert on whatever comes back, and advance your watermark to the max finished_at you saw. The strict-greater-than filter means an unchanged watermark never re-alerts the same failure.

Tool call template

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": "list_dispatches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`since`	No
`status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.20.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses shared-state storage location, strict-greater-than semantics for since, the behavior for still-running rows, the meaning of the failed alias, and the exclusion of cancelled dispatches. It omits potential operational details like pagination or rate limits, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bolded parameter names and a purposeful example. Every sentence contributes either parameter semantics or an operational workflow, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, state sharing, filter semantics, and a complete polling recipe. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides zero description coverage and only bare string/null fields, but the description fully compensates. It enumerates the allowed status values, defines the failed alias semantically, and specifies the ISO 8601 format plus strict-greater-than behavior for since.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List active and recently completed background dispatches,' and adds a distinguishing scoping fact about shared state across central-mcp processes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like dispatch_history or check_dispatch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear, concrete usage pattern for the resident-agent failure watch: call list_dispatches(status='failed', since=<watermark>) and advance the watermark based on finished_at. It does not state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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