Retrieve recent jobs with optional state filters and limits to track delegated coding tasks, queues, and status.
Lista jobs recientes.
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": "list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about pagination, ordering, default limits, or what 'recent' actually means, all of which matter for a list operation.
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?
It is only one short sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy of information.
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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the basics needed to invoke it correctly, though the general intent of listing jobs is at least conveyed.
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% for two parameters (limit, state), and the description never mentions them. 'Recientes' hints at a recency scope but does not explain how limit or state modify the query, so the parameters remain entirely opaque.
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?
The description gives a verb (listar) and a resource (jobs) with a scope hint (recientes), but the tool name is a bare 'list' and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like status, result, or run. An agent cannot tell from this text alone what makes this listing different from the other job-related tools.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as status or result, and no prerequisite or context. The agent must guess whether this is the right entry point for inspecting jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.