Lists recent background jobs and their statuses. Use it to check if background jobs completed or failed.
Recent background jobs with status.
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": "job_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two small facts beyond that: results are time-scoped ('recent') and include status. It says nothing about ordering, result size, or how the job set is bounded.
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 front-loaded fragment with no filler is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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?
For a zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (fields, ordering, how 'recent' is bounded) and how it differs from job_status. One of those gaps is closed ('with status'), the rest are not.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline for an argument-less tool is 4.
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 fragment 'Recent background jobs with status' names the resource (background jobs) and a scope (recent) but uses no verb, so it reads as a noun caption rather than a statement of what the tool does. It is distinguishable from job_output/job_cancel only by inference, and the relationship to job_status (whose status? how many jobs?) is left unclear.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives job_status, job_output, or process_list. The agent must guess whether this lists many jobs or reports one job's status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.