chat-export-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jobs_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List background jobs newest-first and filter by status, kind, or browser to survey the queue; use job-specific status checks for one job ID.

Instructions

List background jobs newest-first with optional status/kind/browser filters. Prefer over repeated jobs_status when surveying the queue; use jobs_status for one job_id detail.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jobs_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Background job kind for the bound browser lane
`limit`	No	Max jobs to return (1-200)
`status`	No	Filter by job status string
`browserId`	No	Filter jobs for one browserId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.4Nov 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / browserId / description
```
Added value: +"Filter jobs for one browserId"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
```
Added value: +"Background job kind for the bound browser lane"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"Max jobs to return (1-200)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / status / description
```
Added value: +"Filter by job status string"
```
First observedv1.0.3Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the meaningful extra trait of newest-first ordering, but says nothing about pagination or truncation behavior of the returned list (e.g. whether the default limit cuts results short). With annotations carrying most of the load, this is an adequate rather than rich description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and the sibling routing second. No filler or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-param read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and rich annotations, the main thing an agent needs — what it lists, in what order, and when to pick it over jobs_status — is present. Minor gap: no note on whether results are truncated at the default limit, which matters since no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, including enum values for kind, a 1-200 bound for limit, and per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description names status/kind/browser filters but omits limit entirely and adds no syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List background jobs"), plus ordering ("newest-first") and filter dimensions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from jobs_status, so an agent does not need to open either schema to choose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit preference rule ("Prefer over repeated jobs_status when surveying the queue") and the inverse condition ("use jobs_status for one job_id detail"). Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out rather than implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.