Immediately creates the next occurrence of a recurring schedule without waiting for the scheduled time. Use for urgent execution or testing.
Immediately creates the next instance of a recurring schedule, without waiting for the scheduled time. Useful for testing or urgent execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recurring_schedule_id | Yes | UUID of the recurring schedule. |
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=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral fact that it creates the next instance immediately, but it does not clarify whether repeated calls create multiple instances or how the schedule itself is affected.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the use case. There is no wasted wording and the description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter action tool.
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 one-parameter trigger with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what it does and when it is useful. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether repeated calls produce duplicate instances or whether the original schedule is modified.
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%, and the schema already documents recurring_schedule_id as the UUID of the recurring schedule. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it immediately creates the next instance of a recurring schedule without waiting for the scheduled time. This clearly distinguishes it from schedule-creation tools like create_recurring_task, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Useful for testing or urgent execution.' That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it offers no exclusions or explicit alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.