Retrieve recent locally persisted audit jobs without contacting Screaming Frog, excluding private extraction checkpoints and configuration file paths.
List recent locally persisted audit jobs without contacting Screaming Frog. Private extraction checkpoints and configuration file paths are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds value by disclosing two behavior traits beyond them: results are locally persisted (no live fetch) and private extraction checkpoints and configuration file paths are deliberately omitted from output. That is useful, non-obvious behavioral context.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the exclusion caveat second; no filler or repetition 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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden, and it does disclose what is excluded and that data is local. Minor gaps remain: ordering by recency is only implied by 'recent', and pagination/limit interaction is unstated.
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?
Only one optional parameter (limit), and the description says nothing about it. The schema itself supplies type, default (20), and bounds (1-100), so the semantics are largely self-evident, but the description adds no meaning about page size behavior or what happens with large limits.
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 and resource ('List recent locally persisted audit jobs') and scopes it with 'without contacting Screaming Frog,' which implicitly distinguishes it from network-touching siblings like audit_status. However, it never names an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is inferred 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?
The phrase 'without contacting Screaming Frog' implies the use case (cheap local lookup of known jobs), but the description never says when to prefer this over audit_status or list_crawls, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.