Retrieve structured details of your Slurm jobs, including job ID, state, partition, elapsed time, and resource usage, to monitor and manage cluster workloads.
列出 Slurm 集群上当前用户的作业（job_id/状态/分区/耗时/资源，结构化）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| states | No | ||
| connection | Yes |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are limited to the current user and are structured, but discloses nothing about the undocumented states filter, result volume, or truncation behavior.
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 packs the verb, scope, and returned fields with no filler. The only slight inefficiency is the parenthetical field list, though it is informative rather than redundant.
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-value explanation is not required, and the purpose is fully conveyed for a simple listing tool. However, with a required connection and an undocumented states filter, the description leaves the agent guessing about filtering semantics.
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 both parameters, yet it says nothing about 'states' (what values are accepted, what filtering it performs) or 'connection'. Since two parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource (列出/列出作业) and scopes it to the current user on a Slurm cluster, enumerating the returned fields (job_id/状态/分区/耗时/资源). It is clearly distinct from write siblings (submit, cancel) but never explicitly contrasts itself with the more proximate read siblings like status or resources.
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 implies a scope ('current user's jobs') but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative among siblings such as status, resources, or ledger_query. The agent must infer which read tool fits a job-inspection task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.