List the authenticated user's most recent generated images/jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of items to return (default 20, max 50) | |
| detail | No | slim (default): status, output URLs and the inputs you set. full: raw job rows incl. internal dispatch fields (very large). | slim |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / detailAdded value: +{
+ "default": "slim",
+ "description": "slim (default): status, output URLs and the inputs you set. full: raw job rows incl. internal dispatch fields (very large).",
+ "enum": [
+ "slim",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It mentions 'most recent,' which gives a scope hint. However, it fails to disclose crucial operational details like pagination behavior, latency guarantees, or how the 'recent' window is defined.
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 definition is highly concise, using a single sentence to state its function efficiently without any unnecessary filler words.
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?
Given that the parameters are fully described in the schema and the goal is simply listing history, the description is adequate. It clearly defines the scope (user's recent jobs) without needing to explain how to return the data.
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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already provides excellent detail on both `limit` and `detail`. The description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond what is already present in the structured fields, meeting the baseline criteria.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly defines the resource being accessed (authenticated user's most recent generated images/jobs). This scope is distinct from all the generation and status sibling tools listed.
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?
While it does not explicitly state 'use this when you want a list,' its specific function as listing 'most recent' jobs clearly differentiates it from the creation, generation, or modification tools. The purpose itself implies its correct use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.