List repository jobs newest first, optionally filtering by repository path or status. Returns compact metadata only, without logs, for quick job overview.
Lista jobs (más nuevos primero), opcionalmente filtrados por repo_path o status. Compacto — sin log, solo metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| repo_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is compact (no log, only metadata), which is useful. But it doesn't mention pagination, whether the list is read-only (likely safe), or what happens with filters applied. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there's no contradiction.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose (list jobs, newest first) and filters. The compact note adds value without waste. Highly concise.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains the filter parameters and the compact nature, but lacks details on pagination, default limits, and return format specifics (e.g., fields returned). It's adequate for basic use but incomplete for advanced queries.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions repo_path and status as filters, covering two of three parameters. The limit parameter is not mentioned, but has a default and is common. The description clarifies that filtering is optional, which adds meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists jobs, sorted newest first, with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like job_status (which likely targets a specific job) by indicating it's a list operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 description implies usage: use this to list jobs, optionally filtered. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like job_status for specific job details. The compact mention hints at a trade-off but lacks explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.