cron_get_statusCheck whether each cron job is running, disabled, or scheduled, with limit and offset pagination. Use it to audit and monitor job states in cronstable.
Show each job's status: running, disabled, or scheduled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the useful status vocabulary (running, disabled, scheduled), but it does not clarify whether all jobs are returned, how pagination affects scope, or what the response structure looks like beyond the output schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is perhaps overly terse for the missing parameter and usage context, but its structure is efficient.
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?
The tool is a simple read-only status query, and the output schema plus annotations cover much of the return and safety context. However, the description is still thin on pagination scope and on how this differs from other job-listing tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among siblings.
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 schema has zero description coverage for the two optional pagination parameters, and the description does not mention limit or offset at all. It therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare schema property names, leaving pagination behavior undocumented.
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 clear verb ('Show') and resource ('each job's status') and enumerates the possible status values. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby tools such as cron_list_jobs or cron_get_job.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cron_list_jobs or cron_get_job. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.