JobNimbus MCP Server

by drummouse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

jn_list_jobs

Retrieve and filter JobNimbus jobs by status, contact, name, or last update using customizable search parameters.

Instructions

List or search jobs in JobNimbus.

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": "jn_list_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No
`size`	No
`sort_field`	No		date_created
`filter_name`	No	Partial match on job name
`filter_status`	No	Filter by status/stage name
`updated_since`	No	Unix timestamp — jobs updated after this time
`sort_direction`	No		desc
`filter_contact_jnid`	No	Filter by related contact jnid

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. With zero annotation coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 extremely short, which is efficient but lacks substance. It is not front-loaded with critical information; it merely rephrases the tool name.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, filtering behavior, or how to interpret parameters like 'updated_since' as a timestamp.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. It does not clarify the purpose or format of parameters like 'from', 'size', or 'sort_field'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists or searches jobs, matching the function name. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all jobs, authorized jobs) or distinguish it from sibling list tools for other entities.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jn_list_activities or jn_list_contacts. The description does not indicate any prerequisites or exclusions.

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