Lists recent jobs newest first with optional status and host filters plus error/crash counts to monitor queued, running, or failed work.
Jobs newest first. status='active' means queued + running. Each row carries error/crash counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | A status, or 'active' = queued+running | |
| host_id | No | Restrict to one host |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: default ordering (newest first), the aggregation semantics of status='active' as queued+running, and that rows include error/crash counts. It does not mention pagination or how truncation at the 500 limit behaves, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 clauses with no waste, though it leads with sort order rather than the core 'lists jobs' purpose, and the telegraphic fragments are slightly less parseable than a single explicit sentence would be.
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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, only filter/paging behavior remains, and the description leaves limit and host_id wholly to the schema. Adequate but with a visible gap for an agent deciding how to page or filter.
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 coverage is 67%; the description explains the 'active' value but that merely restates the status parameter's own schema description, and it says nothing about limit (default 100, max 500) or host_id filtering. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most of the parameter semantics.
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 name plus 'Jobs newest first' makes clear this returns a list of jobs, and the ordering and per-row error/crash counts distinguish it from single-job siblings like job_get. It never states a verb like 'list' explicitly, but the resource and output shape are unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus job_get, job_next, or the build/deploy listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.