Lists active, pending, completed, cancelled, or failed subagent jobs to monitor background work and retrieve recent job statuses, with a configurable limit.
List active, pending, completed, cancelled, or failed subagent jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of recent jobs to return. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no ordering (most recent first?), no pagination/limit behavior, no scope of jobs, and no indication of what a job entry contains. The only real signal is that all statuses are returned, which contradicts the tool name's implication of actives-only.
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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the status enumeration carries most of the weight and could be paired with one clause on scope.
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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose but omits ordering, scope, and result shape, leaving the agent to guess what a returned job record looks like. Adequate but clearly thin.
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?
The single 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Maximum number of recent jobs to return'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no ordering or default-value context beyond it, which is the baseline expectation at 100% coverage.
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?
The description gives a clear verb ('List') and resource ('subagent jobs') and usefully enumerates the statuses returned, which corrects the misleading 'active' in the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling check_agent_job or explain scope (own jobs vs all jobs).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this rather than check_agent_job (single job status) or the dispatch tools. The reader must infer that this is the enumeration counterpart, but nothing in the text says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.