databricks-mcp

by ChrisChoTW

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

list_jobs

Retrieve and monitor Databricks Jobs to track execution status and manage workflows within the Databricks platform.

Instructions

List Jobs

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`expand_tasks`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Implementation Reference

tools/jobs.py:9-19 (handler)

The list_jobs tool handler which uses the workspace client to retrieve a list of jobs, limited by the provided argument.

@mcp.tool
def list_jobs(ctx: Context, limit: int = 20, expand_tasks: bool = False) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
    """List Jobs"""
    w = get_workspace_client()
    jobs_iter = w.jobs.list(expand_tasks=expand_tasks)
    results = []
    for i, job in enumerate(jobs_iter):
        if i >= limit:
            break
        results.append(job.as_dict())
    return results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Mar 17, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the response format looks like, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to describe behavioral characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information or provide any structure. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful value beyond the tool name itself.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a listing tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. While the output schema may document return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters affect behavior, or any operational characteristics. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many sibling alternatives, this description provides inadequate context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no information about parameters whatsoever. With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters (limit and expand_tasks), the description fails to explain what these parameters do, what values they accept, or how they affect the listing operation. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List Jobs' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing any meaningful elaboration. It doesn't specify what kind of jobs are being listed, what resource they belong to, or what scope is involved. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_job_runs' or 'get_job'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_job' (for retrieving a specific job), 'list_job_runs' (for listing job runs), and 'list_pipelines' (for listing pipelines), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The description is completely silent on usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.