job_resultsFor a done/failed job: a presigned download_url (valid ~7 days) for the results tarball (work/, log.lammps, exitcode). Results are deleted 30 days after the run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job id, e.g. MDJOB-20260907-3F200C |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds important behavioral details: URL validity ~7 days and results deletion after 30 days, complementing the readOnly and non-destructive 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key constraints without redundancy.
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?
Complete for a simple read-only tool: states purpose, conditions, and important time-bound behavior. No output schema exists to require additional detail.
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 fully covers the single 'id' parameter; the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's own description.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns a presigned download URL for job results, distinguishing it from job_log, job_status, and delete_results.
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?
Provides condition 'for a done/failed job' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the context is clear.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: account and capabilities cover account/configuration info, while create_job, start_job, and submit_job represent clearly differentiated job submission stages. Monitoring, results, cancellation, and deletion tools are all non-overlapping.
Tool names mostly follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (cancel_job, create_job, delete_results, list_jobs, start_job, submit_job). A few noun-only names like account, capabilities, job_status, and job_results deviate slightly, but the pattern remains recognizable and predictable.
With 12 tools, the set covers the full job lifecycle without being bloated. Each tool maps to a meaningful operation, and the count is well within the typical 3-15 range for a domain-specific server.
The tool surface covers the necessary workflow: checking account/capabilities, submitting and starting jobs, monitoring status/logs, retrieving results, canceling jobs, and deleting results. No essential operation for the stated GPU job management domain appears missing.