Lists past import jobs for the active company, returning job ID, type, source, status, row counts, and timestamps so you can review prior imports.
List past import jobs for the active company. Returns job ID, type, source, status, row counts, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (max 200, default: 50) | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping note that results are limited to the active company, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or retention of historical jobs.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second enumerates the returned fields. The scope constraint is front-loaded and every clause carries information.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (job ID, type, source, status, row counts, timestamps). Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of results and whether the limit affects pagination.
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 'limit' (max 200, default 50) and 'companyId' (UUID override) are already documented. The description's phrase 'for the active company' weakly reinforces the companyId override behavior but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.
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 concrete verb and resource ('List past import jobs') with an explicit scope ('for the active company'), so it is clearly a read/history tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling import_get (single job detail), so it stops short of a 5.
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 'past' and 'history' implies it is for reviewing previously run jobs rather than launching new ones, but usage is only inferred. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer import_get for a specific job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.