lax_list_jobsList open LAX jobs by track with limit and offset pagination to browse available work; a listed budget does not prove funded escrow or guaranteed payment.
Read open LAX jobs. Free read. Filter by track and paginate with limit (1 to 100) and offset. A listed budget does not prove funded escrow or guaranteed payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| track | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description adds value with two things the annotations do not: the call is free (cost behavior) and a listed budget does not prove funded escrow or guaranteed payment (a trust caveat that materially changes how an agent should interpret results). It does not describe result ordering or the shape of returned listings.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, filtering/pagination next, caveat last. Nothing is redundant; even the escrow/budget disclaimer earns its place as a decision-relevant warning.
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 3-param, zero-required, read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and openWorldHint set, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly. The only omission is return-value shape, which is low-stakes here since there is no output schema and the job-listing nature is self-evident.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the load, and it does: track is a filter dimension, limit is bounded 1–100 items, and offset paginates. Gaps remain — the six track enum values are not explained and offset's unit (items vs. pages) is only implied by "paginate".
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource, "Read open LAX jobs", which is immediately distinguishable from lax_get_job (single job) and lax_submit (write). It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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?
"Read open LAX jobs. Free read." implies a browsing/listing use case and the zero-cost framing hints at when to prefer it over paid calls, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is given and no sibling (e.g. lax_get_job for a specific job) is named as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.