Skip to main content
Glama

runtime_jobs_import

Read-only

Read another platform's job into the Runtime jobs that run the same container: a Google Cloud Run job's YAML with the Cloud Scheduler job that runs it, or an AWS Batch job definition (API JSON, describe-job-definitions output or a CloudFormation template) with the EventBridge schedule or rule that submits it. Image, command and args, environment, secrets, CPU and memory, timeout, retries and schedule (EventBridge cron and rate expressions in five fields, in the schedule's time zone) are carried over; each job's image is a Dockerfile FROM the container image. Every setting that could not be carried over is a note that says why, and a job that would not run as it did (several tasks at once, a GPU, a mounted volume) is blocked. Changes nothing: runtime jobs import builds and creates the plan. Pass files as [{path, text}]. Returns from, jobs (each with name, sourceImage, dockerfile, env, secrets, compute, timeoutSeconds, retry, schedule, blocked) and notes (unmapped, changed, info). Then build each job's image from its dockerfile with runtime_images_build and create it with runtime_jobs action create, its command the image's start command.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoRead the files as this platform's. Detected from the files when omitted.
filesYesThe platform's files, each with its name: a Cloud Run job's YAML (`gcloud run jobs describe --format export`) and the Cloud Scheduler job that runs it (`gcloud scheduler jobs describe --format yaml`); or an AWS Batch job definition (`register-job-definition` input, `describe-job-definitions` output or a CloudFormation template) and the EventBridge Scheduler schedule or EventBridge rule that submits it. At most 1 MiB of text in all.
parametersNoValues for a CloudFormation template's parameters and pseudo parameters, such as {"AWS::Region": "us-east-1", "AWS::AccountId": "123456789012"}, so values built with Ref, Fn::Join and Fn::Sub can be read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive) and the description is consistent with them via 'Changes nothing.' It adds real behavior the annotations don't: blocked jobs (multiple tasks, GPU, mounted volumes), per-setting notes explaining what couldn't carry over, and the fact that the output is a plan rather than a created job.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One long run-on paragraph with heavy enumerations (compute, secrets, schedule, five-field cron, return fields). The purpose is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense and hard to parse, and some detail (Dockerfile FROM phrasing) is buried rather than structured into steps.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: from, jobs with named subfields including blocked, and notes split into unmapped/changed/info. Combined with the next-step guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and act on the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so `from`, `files` and `parameters` are already fully documented with pairings and the 1 MiB limit. The description restates the [{path, text}] shape and which file pairs go together, but adds little syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: read another platform's job (Cloud Run or AWS Batch) into Runtime jobs that use the same container. It names the two source platforms, the file types accepted, and the sibling tools (runtime_images_build, runtime_jobs action create) that follow, so an agent can separate it from runtime_jobs alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says it changes nothing and that `runtime jobs import` builds and creates the plan, then routes to the build-then-create sequence with the other tools. Missing an explicit when-not (e.g., importing an already-Runtime job), but the workflow context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.