List scheduled tasks for a Coolify application or service by supplying its resource UUID, with optional resource type, to view configured cron jobs.
List scheduled tasks for an application or service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_type | No | Resource type. Defaults to application if omitted. | |
| resource_uuid | Yes | Resource UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as implying the operation is safe and non-mutating, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, directly worded sentence that conveys the essential operation without any redundancy or filler. It earns its place entirely.
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 listing tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate. It identifies the key scope (application or service) and the action. It could mention the return type (list of task definitions) or any default behaviors, but these are not critical for the tool's simplicity.
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%, with both parameters already described in the schema. The phrase 'for an application or service' mirrors the resource_type enum but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (scheduled tasks) with a scope ('for an application or service'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task_executions by focusing on the tasks themselves rather than their executions, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no explicit context about selecting this over get_task_executions or other tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or filtering options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.