Trigger one or more plugin jobs after actions such as cache file deletion and queue them for the scheduler. Check results with jobs_list; the request cannot confirm execution.
Trigger the jobs of one or more plugins, e.g. after cache_delete_file. Use jobs_list to check results. Queued for the scheduler; this tool cannot confirm it ran.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes | Jobs to execute |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $defs / JobDescriptor / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Job name; informational, the API triggers the plugin's jobs"Input schema / $defs / JobDescriptor / properties / plugin / descriptionAdded value: +"Plugin ID that owns the job"v0.5.0Input schema / properties / jobs / descriptionAdded value: +"Jobs to execute"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds the single most important behavioral fact, which no annotation conveys: the trigger is queued for the scheduler and 'this tool cannot confirm it ran.' That tells the agent to poll jobs_list rather than treat a success response as execution. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already covered by annotations, so this is pure added value.
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, zero waste, and the action is front-loaded before the alternative tool and the async caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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 one-parameter async trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, that it is fire-and-forget, and where to look for outcomes. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.
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% and the single parameter (an array of JobDescriptor with plugin and informational name) is fully documented in the schema. The description only paraphrases it with 'one or more plugins', adding no format or cardinality detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Trigger the jobs of one or more plugins.' It also names the sibling tool jobs_list for result checking and gives a concrete motivating example (cache_delete_file), so an agent can tell it apart from jobs_list without opening either schema.
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?
Provides a concrete usage cue ('e.g. after cache_delete_file') and explicitly routes result-checking to jobs_list. What is missing is any when-not guidance or prerequisite note (e.g. whether the plugin must already exist or be enabled).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.