Retrieve your SLURM job history for a specified number of recent days, with optional filtering by job state to quickly identify failed or timed-out jobs.
Your jobs from the last N days (sacct), optionally filtered by state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| state | No | e.g. 'FAILED,TIMEOUT,OUT_OF_MEMORY' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's remaining job is extra context. It usefully discloses the data source (sacct) and the implicit scoping to the caller's own jobs, but says nothing about result volume, grouping, or time/state edge cases.
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 sentence with zero filler; the resource, window, and filter all appear before any detail, and the parenthetical source note is compact.
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 two-parameter, no-required-arg read tool with a covering safety annotation and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: both parameters are addressed and the data source is named. It stops just short of full completeness by omitting any note on result size/ordering or the state-value format beyond what the schema shows.
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 50%: 'state' is documented in the schema with examples, while 'days' has no schema description. The description supplies the meaning of 'days' ('last N days') and confirms 'state' is an optional filter, so it partially compensates for the gap. It adds no syntax detail for 'days' (units beyond days, valid range, default of 7).
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+resource: retrieving the caller's own job accounting records over a day window, with the underlying source (sacct) named. It is clearly distinguishable from hpc_job_details, hpc_job_efficiency, and hpc_queue in practice, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those 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?
The phrase 'Your jobs from the last N days, optionally filtered by state' implies the usage context (historical accounting vs. live queue status), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as hpc_queue or hpc_job_details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.