schedule_getRetrieve the full stored record for any schedule using its ID or client name. Get items, cadence, dates, rules, and invoice generation count to understand scheduling and billing status.
The full stored record for one schedule: items, cadence, dates, rules and how many invoices it has generated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Schedule id, or a client name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes what the returned record contains (items, cadence, dates, rules, invoice count), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or what happens when the id or client name does not match a schedule.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the meaningful components returned, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It covers the main stored-record components and leaves no obvious gap that would prevent correct invocation.
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 already fully documents the single parameter, including that it accepts a schedule id or client name. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, 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?
The title and description clearly state a specific verb (get), a specific resource (one schedule), and the scope (the full stored record). This distinguishes it from schedule_list, schedule_upcoming, and schedule_history without needing to inspect those tools.
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 implies use when the full record of a single schedule is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as schedule_list or schedule_upcoming. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.