Lists LAX jobs from the Kognai registry, with optional track filtering plus limit and offset paging. Use it to browse available jobs or narrow results by track.
List LAX jobs, optionally filtered by track with limit and offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size | |
| track | No | Job track filter | |
| offset | No | Page offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about return format, default page size, ordering, or what happens when track is omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse, bordering on under-specification, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what 'LAX' refers to, what a 'track' is, default pagination values, and ordering, which an agent could need to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so limit, track, and offset are already documented in the schema. The description names the same concepts ('track', 'limit and offset') but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('List LAX jobs') and mentions the optional track filter plus pagination. It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling lax_get_job, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from lax_search_agents or other siblings.
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 word 'optionally' conveys that filtering is not required, implying this is the general enumeration tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus lax_search_agents or lax_get_job, and no statement of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.