CloudDesk MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cloud_jobs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Monitor shared cloud transfer jobs with progress, speed, ETA, and error details across O2, Drive, OneDrive, and Google Photos.

Instructions

Procesos compartidos con progreso, velocidad, ETA y errores.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cloud_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that jobs contain progress, speed, ETA, and errors—useful data content but not a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not disclose anything about result scope, authentication, or freshness.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single brief sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is not front-loaded with an action verb or purpose, so the structure does not help an agent quickly understand what the tool does.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return details need not be described. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency. Yet the description fails to state the tool's operation, which is critical for a no-parameter tool. Without it, an agent cannot confidently decide to invoke this tool over siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description is not required to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Procesos compartidos con progreso, velocidad, ETA y errores' describes the resource (shared jobs with progress, speed, ETA, errors) but omits any verb or action. It does not state that the tool lists or retrieves jobs, leaving the agent to infer the operation from the name alone. No distinction from siblings like cloud_list or cloud_stat is provided.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cloud_list, cloud_stat, or cloud_pause. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation are mentioned.

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