Syncretica MCP Server

list_jobs

Retrieve recent asynchronous background jobs—including embedding calculations, LLM discoveries, and synthesis reports—to monitor processing status.

Instructions

List recent asynchronous background jobs (embedding calculations, LLM discoveries, synthesis reports).

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": "list_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of recent jobs to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds little beyond the name. It does not say whether results are newest-first, whether completed/failed jobs are included, whether jobs are scoped to the caller, or that the operation is read-only and side-effect free.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its concrete examples are stated immediately. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete — the only real omission is how results are ordered and whether status information is included. That gap is modest given the tool's low complexity.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented with default and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The word 'recent' hints that ordering is by recency, but the description adds no further meaning about how limit interacts with that ordering.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List recent asynchronous background jobs') and parenthetically enumerates the job kinds (embedding calculations, LLM discoveries, synthesis reports), which makes the scope concrete. It does not name a sibling such as get_job_status to differentiate itself, but an agent can still tell it lists many jobs rather than fetching one.

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: 'recent' signals a monitoring/overview use case, and the sibling get_job_status suggests the per-job alternative, but the description never states when to use this versus that tool. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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