list_jobsQuery paginated task summaries filtered by status, action, or project, returning only metadata without prompts or media. Reuse the same filters and nextCursor to continue paging.
按状态、action或项目分页查询持久化任务摘要；不返回提示词或媒体内容。继续翻页须复用相同筛选和nextCursor。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| projectId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the disclosure that responses are summaries only (no prompts or media) and that cursor continuation is filter-bound. Useful context beyond the annotations, though ordering and default page size remain undisclosed.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the query scope, then the exclusion, then the pagination rule. No filler.
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 five fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves the limit parameter, default value, and result ordering unexplained, and the cursor naming is inconsistent with the schema. It is adequate but falls short of what a 0%-coverage, five-parameter tool needs.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names the status/action/project filters but never explains the limit parameter, and it refers to the cursor as 'nextCursor' while the schema property is 'cursor' — a naming mismatch that could mislead the agent.
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 specific verb and resource (分页查询持久化任务摘要) plus the three filter axes, and adds a scope boundary (不返回提示词或媒体内容) that distinguishes it from content-returning siblings like get_job. The distinction from queue_summary is only implied, not stated.
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 pagination rule ('继续翻页须复用相同筛选和nextCursor') gives a clear procedure for continuation, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this list over queue_summary or get_job, and no stated prerequisites for the cursor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.