list_eventsList recent job and callback events for workflow continuation and audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of most recent events to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| events | Yes | Most recent job and callback events, newest first. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of most recent events to return."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "events": {
+ "description": "Most recent job and callback events, newest first.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "events"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping ('recent', 'job and callback events') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering guarantees, pagination behavior, or retention semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('List recent job and callback events') and then states the purpose. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.
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 one fully documented parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly: what it lists, the recency aspect, and the purpose.
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%: the 'limit' parameter already has a full description with default, minimum, and maximum. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('recent job and callback events'), and a purpose ('workflow continuation and audit'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_actions and list_connections.
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?
'For workflow continuation and audit' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the mention of 'recent' implies this is for reviewing history rather than blocking on an outcome. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for a simple list tool.
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.