Lists your engineering simulations on cloudHPC, most recent first. Filter by status (active, completed, error, stopped) to monitor or review results.
List the user's simulations, most recent first.
status: "active" (pending/running/stopping), "all", "completed", "error", "stopped".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | active |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the ordering ('most recent first') and expanding the 'active' status to include pending/running/stopping, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or limit 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?
The description is short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides some information. The status line is slightly fragmentary but remains efficient and readable.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the essential filtering and ordering behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape or limit semantics, leaving some gaps in what an agent should expect.
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. It explains the 'active' value as pending/running/stopping, which adds meaning beyond the raw enum, but the limit parameter is left undescribed and the status values largely repeat the schema's enum.
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 verb ('List'), resource ('simulations'), scope ('the user's'), and ordering ('most recent first'). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_simulation and stop_simulation by the list action, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as get_simulation or list_results. The status list describes filters, not decision criteria for tool selection, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.