List all scheduled cron jobs in the GoClaw AI gateway infrastructure for management and monitoring purposes.
List all cron jobs in GoClaw
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "goclaw_cron_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes inactive jobs, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like (e.g., array of cron job objects), whether it includes metadata, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero structured support, more context is needed.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none, so it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all cron jobs in GoClaw'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling cron tools like 'goclaw_cron_create' or 'goclaw_cron_delete' beyond the basic list vs. create/delete distinction.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for listing cron jobs, there's no mention of prerequisites, when it's appropriate versus other cron operations, or any contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.