Retrieve a cron job monitor's status, schedule, ping URL, last ping time, and next expected ping by UUID to inspect its health and timing.
Get detailed information about a specific cron job monitor, including its status, schedule, ping URL, last ping time, and next expected ping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Monitor UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the shape of the response (status, schedule, ping URL, last ping time, next expected ping), which is useful. However, it says nothing about behavior for an unknown UUID, permission requirements, or read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and then lists what comes back; every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the main thing needed, and the description does that. It falls slightly short only on error/permission behavior, which is minor for this complexity.
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 100% and the sole parameter 'uuid' is already documented as 'Monitor UUID'. The description only implies identification via 'a specific cron job monitor', adding no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific cron job monitor'), and enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent distinguish it from list_monitors at a glance. The word 'specific' signals the single-resource lookup versus a listing.
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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has a monitor identifier and needs full details. The description never explicitly contrasts with list_monitors or get_pings, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a valid UUID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.