list_jobsRetrieve recent render jobs and current running count to report progress 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content context ('most recent' jobs plus a count of running jobs), but says nothing about how many jobs 'most recent' covers, ordering, or pagination.
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; the return content and the motivating use case are packed in without redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so at a high level (recent jobs + running count). It is adequate for a parameterless list tool, though the exact shape and any limit on 'most recent' remain unspecified.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('render jobs'), and adds scope ('most recent' plus a running count). An agent can understand what it does immediately, though it never names the sibling get_job to distinguish the collection view from the single-job view.
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 clause 'so you can report on or resume in-flight work' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to get_job for drilling into a specific job. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.