jobsThis account's newest queued jobs (at most 50), ids and states only, newest first. The job tool reads one in full. Costs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes | Job ids and states, newest first. | |
| limit | Yes | The most jobs listed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "jobs": {
+ "description": "Job ids and states, newest first.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "The most jobs listed.",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "jobs",
+ "limit"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: a hard cap of 50 results, that only ids and states are returned (not full payloads), newest-first ordering, and that the call costs nothing. It does not define what the state values are, which would have made it a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: scope and ordering first, the sibling pointer second, the cost note last. No repetition of the title and no filler.
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?
With an output schema present, return-field documentation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to add cap, ordering, subset, cost and the sibling relationship — all of which it does. The one gap is that 'queued' states are not enumerated, leaving the agent to infer what state values it will see.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and instead spends its words on result shape and cost, which is the right allocation.
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 (list) plus resource (jobs) with precise scope: this account's newest queued jobs, at most 50, ids and states only, newest first. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling 'job' tool, which reads one in full, so an agent can route without opening either schema.
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?
Names the alternative ('The job tool reads one in full'), which strongly implies the workflow: use jobs to discover ids, then job to read details. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a statement that non-queued/historical jobs are excluded, so it is clear context but not a full routing rule.
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.