Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mainframe MCP Server

Mainframe MCP Server

by rohittrimale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_job_files

Read-only

List all spool output files (DD names) for a mainframe job. Provide job name and job ID to retrieve the associated output files.

Instructions

List spool/output files (DD names) for a job.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_name": "<job_name>",
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_job_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes
job_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists 'spool/output files (DD names)', which clarifies the resource type. No additional behavioral context like pagination or filtering is provided.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and has no unnecessary information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it could mention the relationship to get_job_file_content or that it only returns file names, not content.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description offers no parameter details. Parameter names (job_name, job_id) are self-explanatory, but the description could add context like 'identify the job whose files to list'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (spool/output files) for a job. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_job_file_content or get_job_steps.

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 when needing to list files for a job, but provides no explicit when-not or alternatives. No prerequisites or context are given.

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