Retrieve recent run history for scheduled jobs, including success, error, and canceled statuses. Filter by job or limit results to audit execution outcomes.
List recent run history for scheduled jobs (success/failure log)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default: 25) | |
| status | No | Filter by run status: success, error, canceled | |
| job_sys_id | No | Filter by specific job sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it records success/failure states, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose output format, default ordering, or pagination behavior. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It includes the essential purpose and a clarifying parenthetical about content, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 listing tool with read-only annotation and self-documenting parameters, the description provides adequate context. It explains the result is a run history log, and the absence of an output schema is not a major gap since this is a straightforward list operation. However, it lacks details on date range or result ordering, which would be nice but not essential.
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?
All three parameters (limit, status, job_sys_id) have descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of the schema. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters, so it relies fully on the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 'List recent run history for scheduled jobs (success/failure log)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from tools like list_scheduled_jobs which list the jobs themselves, and from execution log tools. The parenthetical clarifies the content type (success/failure log), which is helpful.
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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool (for recent run history of scheduled jobs), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_scheduled_jobs or get_scheduled_job. No exclusions or alternative use cases are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.