List all known async Blender jobs, showing each job's ID, current status, and creation timestamp.
List known async Blender jobs with their IDs, statuses, and creation timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it lists jobs but does not disclose whether this is read-only, any ordering, or whether it includes completed jobs. It's a simple read operation, so the lack of detail is acceptable, but it doesn't explicitly assure non-destructive behavior.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words.
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?
The description is complete for a list operation with an output schema. It specifies what fields are returned, and since there are no parameters, nothing else is needed.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, and that's appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists async Blender jobs and specifies the fields (IDs, statuses, creation timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_job_status (which likely retrieves a single job) and blender_job_cancel (which cancels).
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 description implies usage for listing all jobs but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus sibling tools. For example, it doesn't state that blender_job_status should be used for a specific job. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.