vivid_list_jobsList recent generation jobs newest first, filtered by job type, status, project, or page, to track pending, processing, completed, or failed image, video, and analysis tasks.
List recent generation jobs, newest first. Filter by type (image_gen, video_ugc, product_analysis…) or status (pending, processing, completed, failed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| projectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a safe, closed read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds ordering (newest first) and an implicit recency window, but says nothing about page sizes, total counts, or what a job record contains.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and ordering, followed by the filterable fields. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.
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 output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should carry more: it omits pagination semantics (page/limit defaults, max 100) and the projectId scoping parameter, which is likely the most common way an agent narrows this list. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves real gaps.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description is the only source for accepted values. It helpfully enumerates type values (image_gen, video_ugc, product_analysis…) and status values (pending, processing, completed, failed), which the schema lacks entirely. However, page, limit, and especially projectId — a strong scoping parameter — go completely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List recent generation jobs') plus ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from vivid_job_status and vivid_list_assets. It never names those siblings, so differentiation still requires the agent to compare names.
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?
Usage is implied by the filter dimensions (type/status) and the word 'recent', giving an agent a reasonable sense of when to call it. There is no explicit statement of when to use vivid_job_status or vivid_list_assets instead, and no note on how far back 'recent' reaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.