Retrieve a specific Semaphore UI schedule by project ID and schedule ID to inspect its configuration and status.
Get schedule. GET /project/{project_id}/schedules/{schedule_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| schedule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes nothing beyond the endpoint path – no note on permission requirements, visibility of the schedule, or what is returned when the id does not 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?
Two fragments, no padding, so nothing is wasted – but the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline. Front-loading is fine; there simply is very little content.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description would need to describe the returned schedule shape, or at least the auth prerequisite. Combined with 0% parameter documentation and no differentiation from siblings, an agent cannot reliably call this without guessing.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two required integer parameters. The path template only signals that both are identifiers, without saying whether project_id must match the schedule's owning project or what happens on a mismatch. That is below the baseline expected when the schema is undocumented.
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?
"Get schedule" restates the tool name verbatim and adds only the raw HTTP route. The route does confirm a single-schedule fetch scoped to a project, but there is no statement of what the returned schedule contains or how it differs from list_schedules or get_template. This is closer to tautology than a stated purpose.
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 versus the many siblings in the same family (list_schedules, list_template_schedules, update_schedule, validate_schedule). An agent must infer that this is the per-schedule read from the name alone. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.