Skip to main content
Glama

job_link

Idempotent

Attach a canonical record such as a test run, build, deploy, evidence row, or project to a job, so the job clearly references what it covers.

Instructions

Attach a canonical record the job is about (a test run, build, deploy, evidence row or project).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYestest_run | build | deploy | evidence | project
job_idYesJob id from job_enqueue/job_list, e.g. 'j-1a2b3c4d'
ref_idYesId of the test run / build / deploy / evidence / project

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
kindYes
linksNo
phaseNo
titleYes
eventsNo
originNoWho asked for this run (human | agent | driver | eval | probe | warmup) — scopes the learning loopagent
paramsNoIntake: purpose, expected, caps, flags, pending_shot, ...
statusYes
targetYes
workerNo
host_idNoNULL = not yet assigned (host_choice='ask')
summaryNoPresent once the job is closed out
web_urlNoAbsolute URL of this job's page in the web UI
positionNo
artifactsNo
created_atYes
project_idNo
started_atNo
updated_atYes
crash_countNocrash-level events (the queue board flags these)
error_countNoerror-level events (the queue board flags these)
finished_atNo
current_stepNoThe step awaiting a verdict (newest prompt event + whether it is answered)
requested_byNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds which record kinds may be linked, but does not explain whether linking replaces prior links, requires the job to exist, or what happens on duplicate links.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly sharper by naming the alternative tool, but it is efficiently sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All three parameters are documented and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the unresolved relationship to job_attach and the lack of guidance on duplicate or replacement behavior leave gaps for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents job_id, kind, and ref_id in detail. The description's parenthetical list of record kinds duplicates the schema's kind field rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (attach) and resource (a canonical record such as test run, build, deploy, evidence, or project) tied to a job. The purpose is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool job_attach, leaving ambiguity about which one to call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, notably job_attach and add_evidence, both of which sound closely related. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.