List all scheduled WP-Cron events with next run time, overdue status, schedule, arguments, and listener detection to diagnose missed or stuck cron jobs.
List every scheduled WP-Cron event with next run time, how overdue it is, schedule, arguments and whether any code listens for it. Requires diagnostics:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Configured site name from aism_sites. Omit for the default site. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations don't: the required capability ("Requires diagnostics:read") and the fact that the result surface includes overdue deltas and orphan detection, which tells the agent what it can conclude from the output.
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 sentences, no filler, with the resource and the returned information front-loaded and the access requirement as a trailing constraint. Every clause carries distinct information.
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 read-only, single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the notable derived fields, and the permission prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one optional parameter (site) and its schema description coverage is 100%, already explaining that it comes from aism_sites and defaults when omitted. The description adds nothing about site scoping, so the baseline of 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?
Uses a specific verb ("List") on a specific resource ("scheduled WP-Cron event") and enumerates the fields returned, including the diagnostic edge cases (next run time, overdue amount, orphaned hooks). No sibling tool covers WP-Cron, so the resource alone distinguishes it from tools like aism_diagnostics or aism_logs.
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 read-only listing framing implies when to reach for it (inspecting the cron queue), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as aism_diagnostics or aism_maintenance for rescheduling or running events. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.