Retrieve detailed information for a specific schedule by providing project ID and schedule ID, enabling precise schedule management within SemaphoreUI.
Get details of a specific schedule.
Args: project_id: ID of the project schedule_id: ID of the schedule to fetch
Returns: Schedule details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| schedule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get details' and 'Returns: Schedule details', without disclosing behavior if the schedule is not found, access permissions, or data format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 description is exceptionally concise, using only two sentences plus a structured Args/Returns format. Every word is necessary and no information is repeated from the schema. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, output schema available), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks context about error handling or when to prefer this over siblings, which would improve completeness slightly.
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 adds essential meaning: 'project_id: ID of the project' and 'schedule_id: ID of the schedule to fetch'. This compensates for the minimal schema information, though it could provide more detail on valid ID formats.
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 the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'schedule', clearly indicating it retrieves details of a single schedule. It easily distinguishes from siblings like list_schedules (list all) and create/delete/update 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?
The description implies usage for fetching a specific schedule by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_schedules or other schedule-related tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.