Retrieve LAX jobs filtered by track, with pagination controls for limit and offset. Supports fetching up to 100 jobs per request.
List LAX jobs, optionally by track, with limit and offset. Example: {"track": "seat", "limit": 10}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1 to 100, default 50 | |
| track | No | only jobs of this track | |
| offset | No | jobs to skip, default 0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool lists jobs and supports optional track filtering plus limit/offset pagination, but it does not describe return ordering, authentication needs, rate limits, or the shape of results.
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 two compact elements: a front-loaded purpose statement and a concrete example. There is no redundant or wasted text, and the most important information appears first.
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 list tool with three optional parameters, no nested objects, and full schema coverage, the description provides enough information to call the tool correctly. It is slightly incomplete because no output schema exists and the description does not describe the return shape or ordering.
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 documents limit, track, and offset, including the track enum and defaults. The description reinforces parameter usage with an example, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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: "List LAX jobs". It also mentions optional filtering by track and pagination via limit/offset, so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as lax_get_job, which keeps it from a 5.
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 implies usage by saying jobs can be listed optionally by track and showing an example with track and limit. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like lax_get_job or lax_search_agents, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.