List all jobs spawned by a monitor.
Returns the history of scheduled runs for a monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order by start_date: 'asc' (default) or 'desc' | asc |
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| monitor_id | Yes | The monitor ID to list jobs for |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read operation but lacks details on side effects, pagination, or rate limits.
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 focused sentences with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the primary action.
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?
Despite an output schema existing (reducing need to describe returns), the description is complete for a simple list tool. Could mention pagination but not essential.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema.
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 lists all jobs spawned by a monitor and returns the history of scheduled runs. Differentiates from sibling list tools like list_monitors and list_user_jobs.
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?
Implied usage requires a monitor_id, but no explicit comparison to alternatives like list_user_jobs or when to use this versus other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.