Retrieve a summary of the previous job discovery run, showing sources, job count, and top stored jobs.
Show a summary of the most recent discovery run, including sources, job count, and the top stored jobs for that run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the summary includes but does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, safe, or requires any permissions. 'Show' implies a read, but the absence of explicit safety or side-effect information is a gap for a zero-annotation tool.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and contents without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the report contains, but it omits usage context (when to call it) and explicit safety information. For a read-only tool with no annotations, more guidance would be beneficial.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it adds no misleading parameter information.
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 specifies a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('summary of the most recent discovery run'), and names the summary contents. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like discover_jobs or get_jobs, though the scope ('latest discovery run') implies the difference. An agent can infer the purpose without opening the schema.
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?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, timing, or scenarios (e.g., after a discovery run). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.