list_jobsRetrieves jobs started by MakersMCP—running, completed, or ended—and their output folders so agents can track status and find saved results.
Lists the jobs makersmcp started since it was launched, running or ended, with their folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the completeness of the result set (everything since launch, including ended jobs) and that folders are attached. It does not disclose ordering, result size, or whether the listing is truncated, which matters for an unbounded history list.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifiers (since launch, running or ended) and payload note (with folders) each carry information. Nothing is repeated from the title.
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 simple, parameterless read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it says what is enumerated and what comes back. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of a job entry or how to handle a large history.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema shows. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the jobs") and adds scope: jobs started since launch, whether running or ended, plus their folders. That is enough to distinguish it from the sibling job tools (wait_for_job, cancel_job), though those alternatives are never named.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/status-overview call before drilling into a specific job with wait_for_job or cancel_job. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on using the returned job identifiers with the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.