CVAT MCP

cvat_list_jobs

List CVAT jobs filtered by task, project, state, stage, assignee, or pagination parameters for efficient job management.

Instructions

List CVAT jobs with official /api/jobs filters such as task_id, project_id, state, stage, assignee, sort, page, and page_size.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cvat_list_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`state`	No
`stage`	No
`assignee`	No
`sort`	No
`page`	No	CVAT page number.
`page_size`	No	Number of results per page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists filter parameters and says 'list', but does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or any constraints like rate limits or data scope. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise but could be improved by structuring filter information more readably (e.g., bullet points). Still, it avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Given 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover return type, pagination behavior, default values, or how filters combine. The tool is underspecified for effective use.

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 only 25% (only page and page_size have descriptions). The description merely lists parameter names without explaining their meaning, acceptable values, or how they interact. For low coverage, the description should add semantic detail but fails to do so.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool lists CVAT jobs and enumerates official filters, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like cvat_list_tasks or cvat_get_job, which would clarify when to use this tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that favor this tool over sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server