list_job_runsFetch recent publish job runs, optionally filtered by status or post ID, to track scheduling results and diagnose failed posts.
List recent publish runs, optionally filtered by status or by the post id (resourceId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| resourceId | No | A post id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'recent' scope qualifier, omitting pagination behavior and result ordering/limits that would enrich an agent's expectations.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and filters after. No wasted words, though it is brief enough that it leaves semantic gaps rather than being over-packed.
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?
No output schema exists, and for a read-only list tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description is adequate but thin, omitting pagination semantics and the shape/ordering of returned runs that an agent would want.
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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the status and resourceId filters including the post-id interpretation. However limit and cursor go entirely undocumented in both places, leaving half the parameters 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 (List) and resource (recent publish runs), and the plural 'list' vs the sibling get_job_run's singular 'get' is inherently distinguishable. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_evergreen_runs or other list siblings.
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?
It notes optional filtering by status or resourceId, which implies some usage context, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative like get_job_run or list_evergreen_runs. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.