Jungle Grid MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.20.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: inputs, estimates, jobs, events, logs, and artifacts are clearly separated. get_job, get_job_events, and get_job_logs could overlap, but their descriptions draw clear boundaries around status, platform lifecycle events, and paginated logs respectively.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with list_* for collections and get_* for individual resources. Verbs are specific and predictable across upload, estimate, submit, list, get, and cancel.
Tool Count5/5
At 11 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a job-submission and artifact-retrieval workflow. Each tool maps to a necessary step in the lifecycle without redundant or filler operations.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full workflow: upload inputs, estimate cost, submit jobs, monitor status/events/logs, cancel jobs, and retrieve artifacts. Minor conveniences like deleting old inputs are absent, but no essential operation for the stated purpose appears to be missing.
Average 4/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful side-effect context beyond the annotations: it may start managed compute infrastructure and incur usage charges. This is valuable for an agent deciding whether to proceed, especially since readOnlyHint is false and openWorldHint is true.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the cost/infrastructure warning lands immediately after, making the most important behavioral information prominent.
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?
For a complex 13-parameter submission tool with nested objects and no output schema details provided, the description is too thin. It omits workflow context such as how the submitted job can be tracked, whether it returns a job ID, and how it relates to upload_job_input or estimate_job.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description contains no parameter-level guidance, and schema description coverage is only 31%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters but does not. Required fields like name, workload_type, and image are not mentioned, nor are routing_mode, env, command, or metadata semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('Jungle Grid workload for execution'), clearly conveying that this tool creates and launches a workload. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_jobs, get_job, cancel_job, and estimate_job without requiring schema inspection.
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?
The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as estimate_job or upload_job_input. It implies readiness to execute, but provides no explicit guidance about prerequisites, ordering, or when another sibling should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that the workload is not submitted, which reinforces the non-mutating nature and clarifies that this is a dry-run style estimation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that leads with the action verb and immediately states the tool's scope and non-effect. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool has eight parameters, one required, and a very low schema description coverage; the description gives no guidance on what fields matter or how they interact. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves the agent under-equipped to construct a correct estimate request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, with seven of eight parameters undocumented. The description does not explain any parameter names, relationships, or how to construct a valid workload estimate, so it fails to compensate for the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Estimate') with precise objects: routing, capacity source, and expected cost. The phrase 'without submitting it' clearly distinguishes this from submit_job, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for pre-submission planning ('for a proposed workload', 'without submitting it'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as submit_job or list_jobs. No exclusions are provided, and no sibling tool is named as the right choice when submission is actually desired.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the distinction that this provides download information rather than artifact content, but it reveals little else about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It falls short only in not explicitly guiding the agent toward when to prefer list_artifacts, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only loosely maps 'job' and 'specific artifact' to jobId and artifactId, but adds no format, constraints, or additional meaning for either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Retrieve download information') and a specific resource ('a specific output artifact from a Jungle Grid job'). It clearly differs from siblings like list_artifacts and get_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: when download information for a particular artifact is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_artifacts or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the distinction between phase_started_at and phase_last_updated_at, defines delayed_start, and includes an important caveat that a supported estimate does not guarantee immediate or successful runtime startup. This helps the agent interpret results and set expectations without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise relative to the amount of field-level explanation it provides. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences define key timing/status fields and a caveat. There is little redundancy, though the first sentence is a long list that could be slightly more scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description provides sufficient operational context for a status-retrieval tool. It explains the meaning of the returned timing/delay fields and cautions about estimate reliability. It does not mention how to obtain jobId or direct users to sibling tools for more granular detail, but those are relatively minor gaps for a simple lookup tool.
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 input schema has a single jobId with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only loosely ties jobId to 'a specific Jungle Grid job', without explaining its format, where to obtain it, or any constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate with parameter semantics, but it does not significantly go beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('a specific Jungle Grid job'), and enumerates the specific data categories returned (status, phase, timing, delay, routing, failure, artifact contract). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs, get_job_events, and get_artifact, even without explicitly naming them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for retrieving a single job's current status and related metadata, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over siblings such as get_job_events, get_job_logs, or list_artifacts. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer the primary use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information ('authenticated user's jobs') and implies recency ordering, but it does not go into pagination or response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the usage guidance second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the tool's purpose, user scope, optional filtering, and its place in the job workflow. With an output schema available, return structure does not need to be spelled out. It only lacks explicit pagination semantics and accepted status values, which are conventional gaps rather than deal-breakers.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only addresses 'status' as a filter and leaves 'limit' and 'cursor' entirely unexplained, with no status value details. This is inadequate for a tool with three undocumented optional parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clearly bounded resource ('the authenticated user's Jungle Grid jobs'), and an optional filter ('by status'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_job, which targets a single job, and list_artifacts/list_job_inputs, which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides when to use it: 'Use this to find recent jobs before checking status, logs, or artifacts.' This gives an agent a clear workflow trigger. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contextual cue is strong enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by stating the concrete behavioral effects: stopping active execution and preventing further outputs. This adds context not captured by the annotations and is consistent with them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, the action is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. No unnecessary detail or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the core purpose and behavior are covered. However, the meaning of the reason parameter is missing, and there is no guidance on edge cases like cancelling an already-completed job. This leaves a moderate gap for an AI agent.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter. jobId is only implied by 'existing job,' and the optional reason parameter is entirely unexplained. Agents must infer parameter meaning without support.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an existing Jungle Grid job,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_job, get_job, and list_jobs. It also adds the functional effect of stopping active execution and preventing further outputs, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it applies to an existing job and may affect active execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but no sibling tool offers cancellation, so the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds job-scoped output artifact context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by pointing to get_artifact for retrieving a single artifact, but that is optional rather than essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps jobId to 'a specific Jungle Grid job,' which provides the core semantic, but it does not give format details, examples, or how to obtain the job ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List output artifacts associated with a specific Jungle Grid job.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_job_inputs (inputs) and get_artifact (single artifact).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'associated with a specific Jungle Grid job' provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need output artifacts for a known job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the events include scheduling/startup stages and can precede workload logs, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then adds useful detail about lifecycle events and their timing. Every clause earns its place and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity read-only tool with one self-explanatory parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the key use case and the behavioral nuance about events appearing before logs; nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain jobId, but the single parameter's name is self-explanatory and the description ties it to the job context ('for a job'). This provides marginal semantic value beyond the raw schema, though a more explicit parameter explanation would be better.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('platform lifecycle events for a job'), and it distinguishes itself from get_job_logs by noting scheduling/startup events may appear before workload logs exist. This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when interested in platform-level lifecycle events, especially before workload logs are available. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It reveals a non-obvious interaction pattern: the tool itself does not receive the bytes; it returns an external upload_url, expects an HTTP PUT, and requires a final complete call. This goes well beyond annotations (openWorldHint) and is crucial for invoking the tool correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences deliver the purpose, the protocol, and the link to submit_job without extra words. The workflow is front-loaded before the downstream step.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It includes the essential multi-step flow and there is an output schema to document return values. Remaining gaps, such as upload_url authentication, slot expiry, or what completing actually does, keep it short of perfect.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain parameters. It only hints at kind via 'input file or script'; filename and content_type are left undefined. With three parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The descripion uses a concrete verb and resource: 'Create a managed upload slot' rather than simply 'upload an input.' It also names the downstream submit_job and tells the agent the slot's output feeds it, which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling submit_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a concrete sequence: create slot, PUT bytes to upload_url, complete via complete_url, then pass input_id to submit_job. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with sibling tools beyond submit_job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the authenticated-account scope and that mount paths are included, which is useful beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, scope, and key output detail efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the read-only/destructive profile, the description is complete for correct tool selection and invocation. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('uploaded job inputs'), and clarifies scope ('for the authenticated account') plus the notable detail of including mount paths. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_job_input and list_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear this is the tool for retrieving the authenticated account's uploaded job inputs, which is sufficient context for selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only list nature and sibling set make the intended usage obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that entries include a category field, that pagination is supported, and that workload logs can be empty during queueing/starting phases. These operational details help the agent interpret results correctly without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the category detail earns its place, and the conditional routing is compact and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, alternative routing, and relevant edge-case behavior, and an output schema exists to document return fields. The only missing context is more explicit pagination parameter details, but this is a minor gap given the schema and overall transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only the 'paginated' concept, which implies limit/cursor semantics, but does not explain cursor format, limit defaults, or jobId requirements. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description leaves the pagination contract vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource combination ('Retrieve paginated job logs') that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes log categories and mentions get_job_events as a separate concern, making it easy for an agent to differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives an explicit conditional usage rule: if workload logs are empty while a job is queued/starting, call get_job_events instead. This directly tells the agent when to choose an alternative, which is ideal usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Jungle Grid MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![Jungle Grid MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaguarkyng/Jungle-Grid--mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaguarkyng/Jungle-Grid--mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Jungle Grid MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaguarkyng/Jungle-Grid--mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaguarkyng/Jungle-Grid--mcp-server)

shields.io Endpoint

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

[![Jungle Grid MCP Server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://img.shields.io/endpoint?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglama.ai%2Fmcp%2Fservers%2Fjaguarkyng%2FJungle-Grid--mcp-server%2Fbadges%2Fshields.json)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jaguarkyng/Jungle-Grid--mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jaguarkyng/Jungle-Grid--mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server