Lists stored jobs with optional state and provider filters and a result limit; mock data are test fixtures, not a live account.
List stored jobs. Mock data are TEST FIXTURES, not a live account.
This does not call a provider and does not submit. limit defaults to
50. Pass null to return every match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| provider | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description rightly spends effort on behavior: it warns that Mock data are TEST FIXTURES, not a live account, and that it makes no provider call or submission, so the agent knows it is side-effect free. It nonetheless omits pagination behavior and ordering of results, so it only partially covers the behavioral burden.
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 mock-data warning is front-loaded in a short, direct sentence, followed by scoping notes. The text is compact and contains no filler, though the limit explanation is embedded somewhat awkwardly at the end.
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 need not be described, and the test-fixture caveat is a valuable addition. Still, with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained `state` and `provider` filters leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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 carry all parameter meaning; it explains only `limit` (defaults to 50, null returns every match) and says nothing about `state` or `provider`. Two of the three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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: 'List stored jobs', which clearly distinguishes it from get_job_status, submit_job, and cancel_job. It does not name its direct sibling l2kc_list_jobs or otherwise disambiguate the duplicate toolset, so it falls short of a 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?
It clarifies what this tool does NOT do, namely 'does not call a provider and does not submit', which is useful exclusion guidance. However, it gives no positive routing advice for when to use this versus gpu_list_accounts, gpu_get_job_status, or l2kc_list_jobs, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.