schedule_listList recurring billing schedules with client, cadence, amount, dates, status, and next due date; filter by active or paused to manage client invoicing.
List schedules: id, client, cadence, per-period amount and currency, start and end dates, status, next due date and auto_generate. Filter by status; a paused schedule reports no next due date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'a paused schedule reports no next due date.' Since readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are already present, the description enhances transparency by explaining a subtle output nuance that annotations do not capture.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action 'List schedules' and packs the field list and filter behavior without redundancy. Every word adds value.
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 list operation with one optional filter, the description covers the returned fields and the key behavioral quirk (paused schedules). It omits pagination/ordering details, but given the simplicity and strong annotations, this is a minor gap. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field enumeration.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the status parameter filters results and that the 'paused' status suppresses the next due date, adding meaning beyond the bare enum. However, it does not explicitly state that the parameter is optional or that omitting it returns all schedules.
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 clearly states the verb 'List schedules' and enumerates the specific fields returned (id, client, cadence, amounts, dates, status, next due date, auto_generate), which distinguishes it from single-fetch tools like schedule_get. It also mentions filtering, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 usage for listing schedules and supports filtering by status, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like schedule_get, schedule_history, or schedule_upcoming. There are no 'use this instead of X' directives, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.