What VOLO covers and what it does not: the full list of covered occupations and degrees (slug and name), which occupations have no evidence yet, and the counts. Call this when someone asks whether their job is covered, and whenever resolve_occupation_or_major returns null — then decide from the list which entry, if any, the person means. The answer is a fact about this site rather than a guess about their job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully warns that the answer is a fact about the site rather than a guess about the person's job, tempering over-eager matching. However, it says nothing about auth needs, caching, rate limits, or whether the result is a static snapshot.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the content scope before the usage triggers, and the parenthetical '(slug and name)' earns its space by describing return structure. The final sentence is slightly editorial but adds behavioral value.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does well to outline the returned fields (covered slugs/names, uncovered list, counts). But the undocumented locale parameter and absence of any behavioral constraints leave gaps for an agent that must supply arguments correctly.
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?
There is one parameter, 'locale', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether locale selects a language, a regional occupation registry, or is optional cosmetic filtering, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names the resource (VOLO coverage) and enumerates its contents precisely: covered occupations and degrees with slug and name, occupations with no evidence yet, and counts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from resolve_occupation_or_major by framing itself as the authoritative list rather than a resolver. It lacks an explicit action verb, which keeps it from 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?
It gives explicit triggers ('when someone asks whether their job is covered') plus a concrete fallback condition ('whenever resolve_occupation_or_major returns null'), and says what to do next with the result. This is unambiguous routing an agent can follow without inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.