List recent bioinformatics jobs, newest first, with optional status filtering to monitor progress and identify completed or failed runs without fetching full details.
Recent jobs, newest first (results omitted; use get_job for details).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | Filter: queued, waiting_gpu, running, succeeded, failed, cancelled |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are omitted from the payload and that ordering is newest-first, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, or how 'recent' is bounded.
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?
A single tight sentence with the ordering and the key caveat front-loaded and zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still helpfully notes results are omitted. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter, a minor omission for such a simple listing tool.
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 only 50%: status is documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 the resource (recent jobs) and the ordering contract (newest first), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_job, which is a named sibling. It is not a full verb+resource sentence, but the scope is 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?
Routes the agent explicitly: for details of a specific job, use get_job. That covers the main decision point, though it does not say when listing is preferable to other approaches or mention that no filtering beyond status is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.