Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lava-mcp

lava-mcp

by mattface
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

list_jobs

List test jobs with optional filters for state, health, submitter, device type, and limit, sorted newest first.

Instructions

List test jobs, newest first, with optional filters.

state is e.g. Submitted/Scheduling/Scheduled/Running/Canceling/Finished; health is Unknown/Complete/Incomplete/Canceled.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNo
healthNo
submitterNo
device_typeNo
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It only states 'List test jobs, newest first, with optional filters' and gives example filter values. It does not explain pagination, rate limits, scope (user-specific?), or what 'test jobs' means. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at three lines, with the purpose front-loaded. The list of filter examples is somewhat extended but necessary for clarity. Could be slightly more structured, but no wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of response format, pagination behavior, and the meaning of 'test jobs'. The limit parameter is not described, and overall completeness is low given the 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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds value by listing example values for 'state' and 'health', but does not explain 'submitter', 'device_type', or 'limit' beyond their names. It partially compensates for low coverage but leaves major parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'test jobs', and the ordering 'newest first'. It also mentions optional filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_job' (single job) and 'get_queue' (queue-level info).

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?

The description implies usage for listing jobs with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_queue' or 'get_running'. No contrasting guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools