Remove the active schedule for a saved pipeline by name, stopping recurring runs and returning removed schedule metadata.
Remove the active schedule for a saved pipeline.
Args: name: Saved pipeline name whose schedule will be removed.
Returns: Removed schedule metadata, or a native MCP error when none exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond that: the response is removed schedule metadata, or an MCP error when no schedule exists (consistent with idempotentHint). It does not state auth/permission needs or whether other schedule config is affected.
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?
Front-loaded with the action, followed by concise Args/Returns sections. No filler; the one-line summary plus parameter and return notes earn their place.
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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter's meaning, and the return/error behavior, while annotations cover the safety profile. Only permission requirements and interaction with other schedule state are unstated.
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%, so the schema's 'name' property carries no prose. The description compensates by clarifying the parameter means the 'Saved pipeline name whose schedule will be removed,' disambiguating it from a schedule ID or arbitrary string.
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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Remove the active schedule for a saved pipeline.' It is clearly distinct from delete_pipeline (removes the pipeline) and schedule_pipeline (adds a schedule), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and the pipeline-scheduling sibling set, but the description never states when to use this versus schedule_pipeline, delete_pipeline, or what state the pipeline must be in. No alternatives or exclusions are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.