Lists durable scheduled tasks and the scheduler heartbeat without executing due tasks, helping you inspect schedule status and scheduler health.
List durable schedules and the scheduler heartbeat. Does not run due tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds the important guarantee that merely listing schedules will not run due tasks. 'Durable schedules' also clarifies that the listing concerns persistent schedule definitions rather than transient jobs.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the returned resources and then state the key behavioral limitation. There is no redundant or speculative wording.
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 parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema and comprehensive safety annotations, the description supplies the essential scope and non-execution behavior needed for correct selection. The absence of return-format details is not a gap because the output schema handles that responsibility.
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 has no parameters, so there is no argument syntax or semantics for the description to explain. Its parameterless invocation is consistent with an unfiltered listing of schedules plus heartbeat information.
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 specifies both the action and resources: listing durable schedules and reporting the scheduler heartbeat. Its non-execution clause further distinguishes this inspection operation from schedule mutations and task-running behavior.
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?
It clearly supports inspecting schedule definitions and scheduler health, while 'Does not run due tasks' warns agents not to select it to trigger execution. It would be stronger with an explicit pointer to fofa_schedule_history for execution history or another relevant alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.