Retrieves LoRA training jobs newest first, showing status, progress, and model so you can monitor runs or filter to active jobs only.
List training jobs (newest first) with status, progress, and model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds useful ordering context ('newest first') and the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or how many jobs come back, leaving a real gap for a list tool.
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 tight sentence with the ordering detail front-loaded and no wasted words. Every element (resource, order, returned fields) earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a filtered-list tool the lone active_only parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
There is one parameter (active_only) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description must compensate for the empty schema here and does not, so an agent cannot learn from the definition what active_only filters on.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('List training jobs') plus the ordering ('newest first') and the fields surfaced (status, progress, model). It implicitly contrasts with get_job by being a listing operation, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool versus get_job (single) or create_job (mutate), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.