Retrieve scheduled jobs with optional name, tag, status, and pagination filters to monitor active, paused, completed, or failed tasks.
List your scheduled jobs with optional filters and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| name | No | Filter by name (regex) | |
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does little. 'Your' hints at per-caller scoping, but there is no statement of read-only nature, pagination defaults, ordering, result cap, or what happens when filters match nothing.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably over-terse for a five-parameter tool with no annotations.
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?
A parameterized list tool with 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs more: return shape, pagination defaults, and filter interaction are all absent. An agent can guess how to call it but not what to expect back.
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 only 20%, so the description should compensate more, but it does add real value by grouping the five params into 'filters' (tag/name/status) and 'pagination' (page/limit). It still leaves the status enum semantics, page/limit defaults, and tag matching behavior undocumented.
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 and resource ('List your scheduled jobs') plus scope ('your'), which distinguishes it from list_executions and get_job by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer on its own that list_executions covers runs and get_job covers a single job; nothing in the description routes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.