mistral_list_batch_jobsRetrieve and filter Mistral batch processing jobs by model, status, or creator. Monitor queued, running, or failed jobs across paginated results.
List batch processing jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page | |
| model | No | Filter by model | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| page_size | No | Results per page | |
| created_by_me | No | Only my jobs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world). The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination defaults, result limits, or whether filtering is server-side, so it does not go beyond structured metadata.
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?
One short sentence with no filler and a front-loaded verb. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though sparse.
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?
The tool is low-complexity, annotations carry safety, and the input schema fully documents all five parameters. No output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns; a brief purpose statement is nearly sufficient, though usage context is still missing.
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 100%, with every parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the title/name; it leaves filter, pagination, and default behavior to the schema.
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 ('List') and resource ('batch processing jobs'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate this list tool from siblings like mistral_get_batch_job or mistral_list_fine_tuning_jobs, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given; the description never explains when to choose this over get/cancel/list_fine_tuning_jobs. Listing is implied by the verb, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.