job_listLists every job the server started, is running, or finished, along with each job's state. Use it to recover a job_id; job_status returns one job's details.
Every job this server started, running and finished, with its state.
Use it to recover a job_id; job_status gives one job's details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds useful behavioral scope by saying the list covers all jobs this server started, including running and finished jobs, with their state. It does not mention ordering or retention limits, but the annotations and output schema carry much of the remaining burden.
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 short sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first defines the result set; the second gives routing guidance. There is no wasted text.
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?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains what the list contains and how it differs from job_status, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter expectations.
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 states a specific resource and scope: every job this server started, both running and finished, with state. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from job_status, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the 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?
It explicitly says to use this tool to recover a job_id and names job_status as the alternative for one job's details. That gives clear routing guidance between closely related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.