List recent runtime jobs for an instance with skip/limit paging to check status after ambiguous submission errors and avoid duplicate submissions.
List recent jobs for an instance. Page with skip. Use after ambiguous submission errors to avoid duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| pending | No | ||
| instance | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the duplicate-checking rationale, which is genuinely useful context, but it omits ordering guarantees ("recent" implies newest-first without saying so) and says nothing about what the pending filter changes in the result set.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then paging, then the usage trigger. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the paging story is at least gestured at. But for a four-parameter read tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving the pending filter and the limit cap unexplained is a real gap an agent could trip on.
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 description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters depend on the description. It explains skip-based paging and implies instance, but limit and especially pending (a nullable boolean filter with no stated meaning) are left entirely undocumented.
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?
"List recent jobs for an instance" states a specific verb (list) and resource (jobs) with scope (per instance), which is enough to separate it from the singular quantum_job sibling. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
"Use after ambiguous submission errors to avoid duplicates" gives a concrete triggering scenario that an agent can act on. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., quantum_job for a single job, quantum_cancel_job for stopping one), so the routing is clear in one direction only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.