WorkMobile MCP server

List job statuses

list_job_statuses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch WorkMobile job statuses and their IDs to decode job_status_id values or choose valid status IDs for filtering jobs.

Instructions

WorkMobile's static list of job statuses and their IDs (GET /api/jobs/jobstatuslist), to decode job_status_id and to pick status_ids for list_jobs. The response format is not documented, so it is returned as WorkMobile sends it.

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": "list_job_statuses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data is static and the response format is undocumented and returned verbatim, warning the agent not to assume a schema. It doesn't say anything about caching or ID stability, keeping it out of the 5 band.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states purpose, endpoint, and use case; the second flags the undocumented response. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so well by naming the endpoint and warning that the response shape is undocumented. Minor remaining gap: it could hint at the rough shape (list of id/name pairs) or whether the list is stable enough to cache, but nothing essential is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly does not pad with irrelevant parameter talk.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("static list of job statuses and their IDs") plus the backing endpoint GET /api/jobs/jobstatuslist. It also names two concrete downstream uses (decode job_status_id, pick status_ids for list_jobs), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_job_types and list_jobs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context for when to call it: to decode a job_status_id or to select status_ids to pass into list_jobs, explicitly naming that sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already have the decoded labels cached), so it falls just short of the top band.

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

Deploy Server