List scheduler jobs with their run history and cache metadata to monitor job status and outputs; use cache file listing for files written and trigger jobs when writes are enabled.
List scheduler jobs with their run history and cache metadata. Use list_cache_files for the files they wrote, and run_jobs when writes are enabled to trigger them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful context beyond it: the result includes run history and cache metadata, so the agent knows this is an observational call over job state rather than raw job definitions. No mention of result size, ordering, or pagination, which are the remaining gaps for a tool with no output schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler: the capability and its return contents come first, and the sibling routing follows. Every clause carries actionable 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, which it does at a useful level (run history and cache metadata). It is complete enough to call correctly, though it gives no sense of result volume or whether all jobs are returned.
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?
The input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameters to explain and no semantic gap to fill. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description adds nothing misleading about inputs.
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 ('List scheduler jobs') and immediately scopes the payload ('with their run history and cache metadata'), which tells the agent exactly what a call yields. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools such as list_cache_files and list_instances.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to two alternatives with conditions: list_cache_files for the files the jobs wrote, and run_jobs 'when writes are enabled' to trigger them. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use list_jobs (e.g., a narrower single-job lookup), so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.