List background jobs running on a remote machine over a persistent SSH connection, optionally including finished jobs, so you can monitor long-running remote tasks.
列出当前所有后台任务，含在跑的和已结束的（按开始时间倒序）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | true 连已结束的一起列；默认只列还在跑的 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering (start time descending) and that both running and finished jobs appear, but omits read-only confirmation, pagination/limits, and output shape for a listing tool.
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 tight sentence front-loads scope and adds ordering; there is no filler or 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and sort order, but its running-vs-finished framing conflicts with the parameter default, leaving the actual default result set ambiguous.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively undermines the schema: it says results include finished jobs by default, whereas the 'all' parameter documents that the default is running-only. This contradiction risks the agent reporting wrong scope.
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 (列出/list) and resource (后台任务/background jobs) with scope (current) and ordering (by start time descending). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like remote_job_check, which also deals with 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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With siblings remote_job_check and remote_exec_bg in the namespace, an agent gets no signal about which to pick; usage is only loosely implied by 'list current jobs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.