imd_schedulesList schedules owned by a specific address. Provide the owner address to filter results.
Experimental: Experimental, commissioned as a test of the IMD swarm. It may not work as described. Read the code, start with small amounts, no warranty. GET /schedules?owner= — list the schedules owned by one address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Owner address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does supply genuine value by disclosing that this is experimental, possibly not working as described, and carries no warranty. However, it omits read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, and any return-shape detail, so the coverage is partial.
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?
It is short, but the opening literal duplication "Experimental: Experimental" is redundant waste and the actual purpose is deferred to the final clause. The caveat content is useful but is not structured for fast scanning.
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 single-parameter read endpoint with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the owner-scoped listing. It adds little about the response or reliability beyond the experimental warning, which leaves a small but real gap.
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% for the single owner parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only the "owner=" query syntax, which is marginal beyond what the endpoint string and schema provide; 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?
The final clause states a specific verb and resource — "list the schedules owned by one address" — so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings such as imd_job or imd_order_status, and the purpose is buried behind experimental warnings rather than front-loaded.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling scheduling/job tools. "Read the code, start with small amounts" is a caution, not a usage condition, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.