Trigger a scheduled Firebase function immediately by publishing one tick to its schedule topic, then report the run.
Run a scheduled function now: publish one tick to its schedule topic, as Cloud Scheduler would, and report the run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| function | Yes | Function name or its region-qualified id, e.g. nightlyReport or us-central1-nightlyReport |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core side effect: a real publish to the schedule topic that will cause the function to execute, not a simulation. It does not say whether the call waits for the run, whether it is recorded separately from scheduled runs, or what permissions are required.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism and the 'report the run' outcome are packed efficiently. The trailing clause is slightly vague but costs little.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens and hints at a reported result, which is close to adequate. It leaves open the response shape ('report the run') and whether execution is synchronous, gaps an agent may care about before triggering real execution.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both name forms and the region-qualified id example. The description adds nothing about resolving ambiguous names or region defaults, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Run a scheduled function now') and explains the mechanism ('publish one tick to its schedule topic, as Cloud Scheduler would'), which separates it from functions_invoke and tasks_run. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
'Run now' implies on-demand manual triggering, which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over functions_invoke or tasks_run, nor any preconditions (emulator running, schedule existing, function deployed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.