lax-mcp-server

Get a LAX job

lax_get_job

Retrieve a single job's specification, acceptance tests, bounty, deadline, and status by its UUID.

Instructions

Get one job: spec, acceptance tests, bounty, deadline, status. Example: {"id": "a14478ee-35f7-4457-843a-482f25af6dad"}

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": "lax_get_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No	The job id (a UUID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully discloses the payload contents an agent will get back. However, it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, permissions, or why the tool is described as fetching 'one job' while the id parameter is marked optional (required: 0) — a real ambiguity left unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence plus a minimal example, with the resource and payload fields front-loaded. No filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-entity fetcher, listing returned fields compensates reasonably for the absent output schema. But the optional-id ambiguity and lack of any error/not-found behavior leave gaps an agent would want covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (the id property is documented as 'a UUID'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The inline example reinforces the expected id format, but adds no syntax beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one job') and enumerates the returned fields (spec, acceptance tests, bounty, deadline, status), which makes it distinguishable from lax_list_jobs. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single job by id contrasts implicitly with lax_list_jobs, and the inline example illustrates the call shape. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server