List persistent jobs for a bound Speechify account, with optional filtering by state, pagination via cursor, and a configurable result limit to browse or track job status.
List persistent jobs for the bound Speechify account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| cursor | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination behavior (implied by limit/cursor), result ordering, retention of jobs, or what "persistent" means. The one useful hint is that results are scoped to the bound account, but that is minimal for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. It is concise to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, so it loses only slightly here.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unknown for an agent to call this correctly. It should at minimum explain the meaning of "state" and the pagination contract implied by limit and cursor.
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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The most consequential gap is "state", an unconstrained string with no enum and no explanation of valid values, and "cursor" is never explained as a pagination token.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ("List ... jobs") and scopes it to the bound Speechify account, which separates it from the single-job sibling speechify_get_job. However, the distinguishing modifier "persistent" is never defined, and the description does not explicitly contrast with speechify_list_items or speechify_get_job.
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 guidance on when to list jobs versus fetching one with speechify_get_job, nor any mention of when listing is preferable to speechify_list_items. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.