slurm_list_jobsList locally registered Slurm jobs tracked by hpc-mcp to inspect authorized job records. Use before submitting, monitoring, or retrieving logs.
Inspect locally registered jobs only.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what 'locally registered' means, whether results are paginated, filtered, or what state jobs are in when listed. The single scope word 'only' is the only behavioral content.
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?
A single short clause, front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine tightness.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the agent's only source of information about this tool. It omits what is returned, how 'locally registered' is determined, and how the result differs from other job-related siblings, leaving the agent unable to call it with confidence.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to convey. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool has a baseline of 4.
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?
It states a resource (jobs) and a scope qualifier ('locally registered ... only'), which separates it from remote-oriented siblings. However, the verb 'Inspect' is vague and even conflicts with the tool name's 'list', and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like slurm_get_job, slurm_watch_job, or slurm_list_artifacts.
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 'only' implies a boundary (local jobs, not remote/unregistered ones), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance. An agent has no signal for choosing this over slurm_get_job or the remote_* listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.