Skip to main content
Glama

jobd_submit

Submit shell commands to a job broker for queued execution on workers. Supports async or synchronous blocking mode with optional GPU pinning.

Instructions

Submit a job to the jobd broker. Default async; pass wait=true to block up to wait_timeout_s (server clamps to 270).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdYesAbsolute path; broker validates against worker mount_roots.
gpuNoPin to GPU-capable worker.
hostNoHost alias pin (laptop, desktop-vm).
waitNoSync mode: block until terminal or timeout. For an array submit (count/sweep), waits on every member under one shared deadline and returns an aggregate {array_id, count, job_ids, states, all_completed, members:[{job_id, state, exit_code}]}.
extraNoEscape hatch: idempotent (bool), depends_on (int[]), depends_on_any_exit (bool), priority (int delta), max_wall_s (int), idle_timeout_s (int), scheduling_timeout_s (int 1..604800 — give up and terminate the job as 'scheduling_timeout' if it is still QUEUED after N seconds; omit to wait indefinitely for a capable worker), checkpoint_grace_s (int 1..300), vram_gb (float — explicit GPU VRAM the job needs at dispatch; falls back to cuda-Ngb tier-tag max, then to 2 GB floor for --gpu jobs), count (int 1..1000 — submit a job array of N members, with `{i}` in the command replaced by the 0-based index; response is {array_id, count, job_ids, warnings} instead of a single job), sweep (list of {key, values[]} — parameter-sweep axes; broker fans out the cartesian product, substituting `{key}` per member plus `{i}`; mutually exclusive with count; product capped at 1000), profile (str), env (dict), preemptible (bool), session_id (str), arch (str — pin to a worker CPU arch), os (str — pin to a worker OS).
needsNoTool tags (R, python3, cuda).
commandYesShell command run by the worker shell.
dry_runNoPreview mode: run full validation + routing decision (profile, project defaults, cwd, depends_on, preflight, gpu_contention) and return the would-be plan WITHOUT queueing. Response has state='dry-run', would_route_to (list[host]), would_use_worker (host or null), validation (resolved fields + warnings). Per dry-run convention 2026-05-18.
projectYesPriority lookup key; falls back to _default.
wait_timeout_sNoSeconds; permissive — server clamps to 270.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that submission is async by default, that wait=true blocks, and that the server clamps wait_timeout_s to 270. This is adequate but minimal; it does not mention that submission is a mutation, nor describe any side effects or failure modes beyond timeout.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the most important usage nuance. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very brief. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, array response) or hint at common usage patterns. For a complex tool with numerous parameters, this leaves the agent underinformed about expected outcomes and edge cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for the 'wait' and 'wait_timeout_s' parameters by explaining their interaction and the server clamp. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters (e.g., 'extra', 'needs', 'dry_run') beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in only minor additional semantic value.

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 'Submit a job to the jobd broker,' which is a specific verb-action on a distinct resource. It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like jobd_cancel, jobd_list, etc., which perform different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the default async behavior and how to switch to sync mode via wait=true, including the timeout constraint. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, the usage context (submit vs. manage/list) is clear from the tool name and siblings.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/musharna/jobd'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server