Lists workspace transcription jobs newest first, letting you page through results with a cursor and set a page size from 1 to 100.
List jobs for the workspace, newest first, with cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1 to 100. Defaults to 20. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous list_jobs call's next_cursor. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are newest first and paginated with cursors.
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 with no filler. Every element - resource, scope, ordering, and pagination - earns its place.
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 simple read-only list operation with complete parameter descriptions and annotations, the definition is nearly complete. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how workspace scope is determined, but nothing critical prevents 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents limit and cursor. The description reinforces cursor pagination but does not add format or usage details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists jobs for the workspace. It also adds scope details (newest first, cursor pagination), but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_job or wait_for_job.
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 listing purpose and pagination model imply this is for enumerating jobs rather than retrieving one job or waiting on a job. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_job or wait_for_job, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.