Submit shell commands as asynchronous jobs on HPC clusters, locally or via Slurm, with custom timeout and tail output. Detach to run in background and poll later.
Submit a command as an async (non-blocking) job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description communicates the core non-blocking behavior, which is not derivable from the tool name alone. However, with no annotations, it carries the full burden; it does not disclose timeout kill behavior, job lifecycle (poll/cancel), or what a successful submission returns, relying on parameter descriptions in the schema.
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 sentence with no filler; 'async (non-blocking)' is front-loaded and adds behavioral precision without bloating the length.
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?
The tool is complex (nested input, local/slurm modes, timeouts, detached execution, no output schema), yet the description provides only a one-line overview. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, how to retrieve results (beyond the detach parameter's mention of poll_job), or when different modes/timeouts apply, so the description is incomplete on its own.
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?
The description adds only a general 'command' framing; all parameter details are left to the schema, which already describes mode, tail, detach, command, timeout, instance_id, and slurm_resources. Given the detailed nested schema, this is adequate but not enhanced by the description.
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 states a specific action — 'submit a command' — and clarifies that it is asynchronous and non-blocking, which separates it from synchronous execution tools like host_exec. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than fully 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?
'Async (non-blocking)' gives a clear reason to choose this tool over synchronous alternatives, and the sibling set (poll_job, cancel_job, host_exec) reinforces that context. There is no explicit 'use X instead when...' sentence, so it does not earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.