list_jobsRetrieve recent render jobs and running counts to report status or resume in-flight work.
List the most recent render jobs + how many are currently running, so you can report on or resume in-flight work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "jobs": {
- "description": "recent jobs ({id, type, status, …}), newest first",
- "items": {},
- "type": "array"
- },
- "running": {
- "description": "how many jobs are currently running",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.15v0.1.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral scope of recency and the running-count aggregation, but it does not disclose fields, ordering, or limits, so it is useful but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds information about scope, output, or intended use.
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-parameter read-only list, the description reveals the key outputs: recent jobs and currently running count, plus a purpose. It could be more precise about result fields or limits, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document. The description clarifies that the tool returns recent jobs plus a running count, which is the only semantic content an agent needs for invocation.
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 names a specific verb ('list'), a concrete resource ('render jobs'), and the precise scope ('most recent' + running count). This differentiates it from sibling get_job and other list_* tools without needing the schema.
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?
It gives a clear use context: reporting on or resuming in-flight work, with no explicit exclusions or alternative tools. A sibling such as get_job exists for detailed lookups, but the description does not explicitly route between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.