crons_getRetrieve a cron trigger's details, including its schedule and status, by specifying its ID along with the organization and project IDs.
Get cron trigger
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| projectID | Yes | ||
| cronTriggerID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note about what the trigger object contains, auth/scope requirements, or failure modes when an 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?
It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is no front-loaded scope, no constraint, and no routing information. The single sentence earns its place only by being the tool's name.
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?
With three required ID parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient to invoke the tool confidently. An agent cannot tell what the returned trigger looks like or how the three IDs relate, though the read-only annotations do cover the basic safety question.
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% for all three required parameters (orgID, projectID, cronTriggerID), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and instead says nothing. The regex patterns hint at ID formats but the description adds no meaning about relationships or which scope each ID belongs to.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 crons_list (to enumerate triggers) or crons_update (to modify one). No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.