ppdm-mcp-server

list_failed_jobs

Lists failed backup jobs from PPDM with optional asset-type filtering, returning asset name, type, error, and start time to help diagnose backup failures.

Instructions

List failed backup jobs from PPDM. Returns asset name, type, error, and start time.

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_failed_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20)
`asset_type`	No	Filter by asset type: KUBERNETES, VMWARE_VIRTUAL_MACHINE, MICROSOFT_SQL_SERVER, etc.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by naming the returned fields (asset name, type, error, start time), which tells the agent this is a read-only diagnostic listing, but it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, time-range scoping, or what an empty result means.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope ('failed backup jobs from PPDM') front-loaded before the return-value detail. Nothing would be lost by keeping it exactly as is.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the identity, source system, and return shape adequately. It falls short only on result-set behavior such as ordering and default time window, which matter for a failure-listing tool whose output can be large.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both limit and asset_type documented in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about how asset_type interacts with the failure filter (e.g. whether the type refers to the failed asset or its parent) or what happens when limit is exceeded.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource (list failed backup jobs) plus the source system (PPDM), and the second sentence enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly distinct from list_running_jobs by virtue of the 'failed' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer from the word 'failed' that this is for post-mortem triage rather than monitoring in-flight work, which is the job of list_running_jobs.

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