list_jobsRetrieve all background jobs tied to a specific terminal session. Use it to monitor asynchronous processes, check job status, and track activity by passing a session ID.
Lists all background jobs associated with a specific session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Lists" implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering, whether completed/failed jobs are included, or run-time cost for a potentially large job set.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the behavioral gaps left unfilled.
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 not be explained. Still, for a listing tool with no annotations, the description omits any note about result size, pagination, or job-state coverage, leaving the agent to guess at the shape of the listing.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter carries no format or constraint info. The description at least conveys that session_id scopes the listing to one session, but adds no syntax (e.g., ID format) or validation details beyond the schema's type.
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 ("Lists all background jobs") and scopes it to a session, which is enough to distinguish it from get_job or submit_job. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with sibling tools like get_job, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The phrase "all background jobs associated with a specific session" implies the enumeration use case, which implicitly contrasts with get_job for a single job. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_job or how to handle filtering, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.