Retrieve recurring task schedules for a project to track automated work; filter to active schedules by default.
Lists all recurring task schedules for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID. | |
| active_only | No | Only return active schedules. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to a project; it does not mention pagination, ordering, or that the default behavior silently filters to active schedules, which is a meaningful behavioral detail.
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?
A single tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. The only flaw is that the word 'all' misrepresents the default filtering behavior.
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 simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of clarifying result scope (active vs all, pagination limits) that an agent would want when calling this rather than get_recurring_history.
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 100%, so both project_id and active_only are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Lists) and resource (recurring task schedules) scoped to a project, which distinguishes it from list_tasks and get_recurring_history. However, 'all' is slightly inaccurate given the schema's active_only default of true, so the scope claim is not fully precise.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to create_recurring_task/update_recurring_schedule rather than get_recurring_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.