get_job_statusesList valid job status values for use in filtering or creating jobs, with results cached for 30 minutes.
List all available job statuses. Useful for knowing valid status values when filtering or creating jobs. Cached 30 minutes.
| 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?
Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait 'Cached 30 minutes,' which is valuable and not present in the annotations. This surfaces a potential staleness consideration for the agent.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The core listing behavior is front-loaded, followed by the use case and cache disclosure. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple enumeration endpoint.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, why it's useful, and the caching caveat. An agent can confidently invoke this tool without further assumptions.
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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description reinforces that the operation takes no input and returns the full set of statuses.
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 opens with 'List all available job statuses,' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this lookup tool from job-centric siblings like search_jobs or get_job_details. It also states the practical purpose: knowing valid status values when filtering or creating jobs.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for knowing valid status values when filtering or creating jobs.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools this is the sole status-enumeration endpoint, so the guidance is adequate without needing to differentiate further.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.