list-bunnyshell-workflow-jobsTroubleshooting: list BunnyShell workflow jobs for an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| botId | No | QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding. | |
| projectApiKey | No | QA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it. | |
| bnsEnvironmentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / botIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "QA bots: your botId from your stored TestChimp binding.",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / projectApiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "QA bots: your own project API key from your stored TestChimp binding. Required on every call except get-bot-credentials, get-project-credentials and get-bot-compat. Never print it.",
+ "maxLength": 256,
+ "minLength": 8,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds the troubleshooting framing and environment scoping; it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with the use case placed first and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of what leaves the semantic gaps above.
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 no output schema, 4 parameters at 50% coverage, and a paging parameter, one line is not enough. An agent is left without knowing what a job record contains, how to page, or how this differs from the job-logs sibling.
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 50% (botId and projectApiKey are documented, bnsEnvironmentId and page are not), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It neither explains the required environment id nor clarifies how the page parameter drives result paging.
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) and resource (BunnyShell workflow jobs) scoped to an environment, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list-workflow-executions and get-bunnyshell-workflow-job-logs. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The leading 'Troubleshooting:' tag implies the intended scenario, which is useful framing. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never points to the adjacent tools an agent would weigh against it, such as get-bunnyshell-workflow-job-logs for a single job's output.
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.