list_tool_jobsRetrieve paginated Bannerbear V5 tool job records by page and optional workspace profile, enabling AI agents to review past job activity and status.
GET /v5/tool_jobs. Current Bannerbear V5 operation; provider scopes, locks and credits apply. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| account | No | Exact private workspace profile label; no fallback to another profile key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read operation' adds nothing. The description does add genuinely new context — that provider scopes, locks, and credits apply — which is useful for a metered operation. It still says nothing about result volume or rate/credit cost specifics.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but 'Current Bannerbear V5 operation' is filler and 'Read operation' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, so not every fragment 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 listing endpoint with no output schema, the description omits pagination behavior, what a returned tool job contains, and how results relate to get_tool_job. The only substantive addition is the credits/scopes note.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'account' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'page' has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented pagination parameter.
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 gives an endpoint ('GET /v5/tool_jobs') and the name states the verb+resource, so the general purpose is inferable. However, it provides no differentiation from the sibling get_tool_job, and the endpoint string largely restates the tool name rather than explaining the operation in plain language.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_tool_job or any of the other listing tools (list_workflows, list_batches, etc.). No prerequisites, pagination guidance, or conditions for selecting it are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.