Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_agents_list_triggers

Lists event triggers, schedules, and chains for a specified agent, helping you inspect and understand its configured automations.

Instructions

List event triggers, schedules, and chains for an agent

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_agents_list_triggers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesAgent ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of permissions, whether disabled or archived triggers are included, result size/pagination, or ordering — all things an agent would want before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource list comes immediately after the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and for which entity, which is the minimum viable. It stops short of the pagination, filtering, and permission context that would make the definition self-sufficient given the absence of annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents agent_id and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for an agent' reinforces the scoping but adds no format, source, or lookup detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description names a specific verb (List) and enumerates the resources returned (event triggers, schedules, chains) scoped to an agent. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like kernel_agents_add_trigger or kernel_agents_chain without opening a schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent_id requirement signals 'call this to inspect one agent's triggers', but there is no statement of when to prefer it over related listing tools or any preconditions. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the routing decision.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools