Retrieve finalized results from completed GPU jobs on the persistent compute queue. Filter by project, limit, and offset to check status before interpreting outputs.
Discover finalized results from earlier sessions; check status before interpreting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project | No |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that only finalized/completed results are returned ('finalized results') and that it is a read-style discovery operation, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, pagination behavior, or time-based scoping beyond 'earlier sessions'.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core purpose first and then adds a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. However, the description does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or that all parameters are optional, and with no annotations the safety profile is unknown. For a simple list tool with three optional parameters, this is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention limit, offset, or project at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, leaving the agent to infer semantics.
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 uses a clear verb 'Discover' with a specific resource 'finalized results from earlier sessions', and adds a purpose hint with 'check status before interpreting'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools because no siblings are named, but the core action and target are unambiguous.
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 phrase 'check status before interpreting' implies that this tool should be used as a preliminary step before analyzing results, which is a useful contextual cue. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.