List evaluations for a project jobset in newest-first pages to inspect recent CI results and track changes.
List a jobset's evaluations, newest first, one page at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| jobset | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| instance | No | Configured Hydra instance; omitted uses the default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: results are newest-first and paginated one page at a time. It does not disclose page size, total counts, or what happens past the last page, keeping it at a solid but not rich 3.
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 no filler; scope, ordering, and pagination are front-loaded in one clause. Every element 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?
For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (ordering, pagination) an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around page size and boundary behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.
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 only 25% (only 'instance' is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'jobset' and implies the 'page' parameter via 'one page at a time', but adds nothing about project scoping or page-size semantics. Baseline 3 for a partially self-documenting parameter set.
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 a jobset's evaluations') plus scope and ordering, so an agent can distinguish it from get_eval and the other list_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
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: 'a jobset's evaluations' tells the agent it must supply a jobset, and 'one page at a time' hints at paging. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_eval or search, nor any prerequisite/context statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.