List recent backup jobs for the active company and review each job's ID, status, creation date, file size, and whether files were included.
List recent backup jobs for the active company. Returns job ID, status, creation date, file size, and whether files were included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (max 50, default: 20) | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID override (uses active company if not set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat the safety profile. It adds real value with the 'active company' scoping and an explicit list of returned fields: job ID, status, creation date, file size, and whether files were included.
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?
It is two sentences with zero waste. The core action and scope come first, and the return fields follow immediately.
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 full schema coverage and strong annotations, this is nearly complete. It covers scope and return shape. The only minor gap is that ordering or recency semantics for 'recent' and the relationship to backup_status are left implicit.
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 100%, so both parameters, namely limit and companyId, are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the active-company default, but it adds no detail about limit behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema already provides.
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: it lists recent backup jobs for the active company. That is clearly distinguishable from backup_create, backup_restore, and backup_download, but it never explicitly says how it differs from the sibling backup_status, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The word 'List' and the phrase 'recent backup jobs' imply that this is the history-listing call, but the description never states when to choose this tool over backup_status or backup_download. The usage is inferable, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.