Retrieve all cron job monitors with their status, schedule, last ping time, and ping URL. Filter by tag to audit scheduled tasks and spot failures quickly.
List all cron job monitors in your WatchCron project. Shows name, status, schedule, last ping time, and ping URL for each monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter monitors by tag |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (name, status, schedule, last ping, ping URL), effectively compensating for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result ordering.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the returned fields follow. Nothing needs trimming.
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 read-only list tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what comes back. Only pagination/ordering behavior is left 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 100%, so the single tag parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the tag filter, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource ("List all cron job monitors") plus scope ("in your WatchCron project"), and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_monitor (which fetches one), though it never names the sibling 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 only implied by "List all" — an agent can infer this is the enumeration call versus get_monitor for a single monitor. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the tag filter as a way to narrow the listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.