list_uploadsRetrieve recent upload jobs from this computer, newest first, including progress and results. Filter by status or set a limit to check queued, active, or failed uploads.
Recent upload jobs from this computer, newest first, with progress and results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and locality profile is known. The description usefully adds ordering ('newest first') and signals that each entry carries 'progress and results', but says nothing about pagination behavior, default status filtering, or whether entries disappear once a job is cleaned up.
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 no filler, and the ordering guarantee is placed where it is most useful. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity shades into under-specification.
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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the core intent is conveyed and 'with progress and results' compensates slightly for the absent output schema. The unaddressed parameters and the absence of any return-shape detail leave real gaps for an agent trying to predict what comes 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters and does not carry it — 'limit' and 'status' are never mentioned, the eight-value status enum is unexplained, and 'recent' only vaguely gestures at a result-count cap.
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 gives a specific resource (upload jobs) plus scope qualifiers — 'recent', 'from this computer', 'newest first' – which distinguish it from a single-job lookup like get_upload_status or a library listing like list_my_videos. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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: an agent can deduce this is the browsing/history tool versus status polling, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative tool for a specific job id or for already-published videos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.