Automate host system tasks by scheduling a command to run at a specific time or on a recurring cron schedule.
Schedule a command at a specific time or on a cron schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes | ||
| run_at | Yes | ||
| command | Yes | ||
| recurring | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description only restates the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as job persistence, duplicate creation on repeated calls, or that scheduled jobs can later be managed with list_jobs/cancel_job. Minimal value is added beyond the 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and main distinction (time vs cron). It is appropriately short and well-structured, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.
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?
Given a 4-parameter schema with no descriptions, a mutating non-idempotent operation, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits required parameter semantics, job-management context, and the meaning of a successful response, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics, but it only hints at run_at and recurring ('specific time' vs 'cron schedule'). It never explains the required `command` or `args` fields, the expected format of `run_at`, or how cron expressions should be supplied.
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 uses a specific verb ('Schedule') and resource ('a command') and clearly identifies two modes: specific time and cron schedule. It is accurate and distinguishable from the sibling run_job_now, but does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative for immediate execution, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
The description implies usage (scheduling at a time or via cron) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_job_now, list_jobs, or cancel_job. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.