List all event triggers with their state, last check, next check and fire count. Use it to verify which CI, training, service or price triggers are active before relying on them.
List all triggers with their state, last check, next check and number of fires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The supplied annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description does add real value beyond that by enumerating the response fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no triggers exist.
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; every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned data. There is no repetition of the title or annotations.
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 no-argument read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is close to sufficient, and the field list compensates for the absence of an output schema. Ordering and empty-result behavior are the only notable omissions, and both are minor at this complexity.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No parameter-level detail is expected or missing.
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 ("List all triggers") and names the fields returned (state, last check, next check, number of fires), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as trigger_get or trigger_history, which also surface trigger data.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though trigger_get, trigger_history, and trigger_report are close siblings. The only steer is the word "all", which weakly implies a bulk-listing use case rather than a single-record lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.