crons_deleteDelete a cron trigger in Omnara to stop future scheduled runs; already launched agents keep running and deletion cannot be undone.
Deletes a cron trigger so it never fires again; there is no undo. Agents it already launched keep running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | Organization ID (org_...). | |
| projectID | Yes | Project ID (proj_...). | |
| cronTriggerID | Yes | Cron trigger ID (cron_...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / cronTriggerID / descriptionAdded value: +"Cron trigger ID (cron_...)."Input schema / properties / orgID / descriptionAdded value: +"Organization ID (org_...)."Input schema / properties / projectID / descriptionAdded value: +"Project ID (proj_...)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds two traits the annotations cannot express: irreversibility ('there is no undo') and the non-obvious side effect that already-launched agents keep running.
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?
A single dense sentence with the irreversible consequence and the residual side effect front-loaded; nothing is wasted and nothing needed is omitted.
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 three-ID delete tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to complete: it conveys the destructive, permanent nature and what survives. Only the absence of any routing guidance to a less drastic sibling holds it back.
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% with three documented ID patterns, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning about the required orgID/projectID/cronTriggerID scoping.
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?
States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (cron trigger) plus the effect ('never fires again'), which cleanly separates it from crons_create, crons_get, crons_list and crons_update without opening any schema.
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 explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative is named (e.g., whether updating or disabling is preferable). The stated effect implies a use case, but nothing helps the agent decide between this and sibling mutation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.