Retrieves a Hydra jobset's configuration, evaluation state and errors, plus recent evaluations, so agents can inspect CI status and diagnose failures.
Get a jobset's configuration, evaluation state and errors, plus its most recent evaluations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobset | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| instance | No | Configured Hydra instance; omitted uses the default | |
| recent_evals | No |
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that errors are included in the response and that recent evaluations are returned, but it does not say what happens if the jobset is missing, how many evaluations are included by default, or whether the response is paginated. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, immediately stating the verb, resource, and returned data. Every clause earns its place by identifying what the call retrieves.
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?
The tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, so the description needn't explain return format or side effects. However, with four parameters at 25% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete regarding the recent_evals limit and the required project/jobset scoping. It gives the gist but leaves parameter behavior to inference.
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 the 'instance' parameter documents its default in the schema. The description mentions 'most recent evaluations' but does not explain the recent_evals parameter's default of 5 or maximum of 20, and says nothing about the required project and jobset parameters or their naming patterns. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a jobset') and enumerates what is returned: configuration, evaluation state and errors, plus recent evaluations. This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as list_evals or get_eval, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_job or get_project.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_evals, get_eval, or get_job. The description implies a detail-fetch use case but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.