Resolve a job title, a company's internal name for a role, a nickname or a degree name to a canonical VOLO entity. Call this FIRST whenever a person names their job. Returns a match field of exact or approximate — when it is approximate, say which entity you read the question as. Returns null when VOLO does not cover it, which is a gap in this site and not a statement about the job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that matches can be exact or approximate, instructs to state the entity read when approximate, and clarifies that null indicates a gap in VOLO coverage rather than a statement about the job. This is transparent about potential ambiguity and the meaning of null.
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, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage priority, and return behavior. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Covers the essential aspects for a resolver: what it resolves, when to use it, what it returns (exact/approximate/null), and how to interpret results. No output schema exists, so description compensates by describing the match field. Minor omission: locale parameter is not explained, and the match field structure could be more explicit, but overall sufficient for an agent to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains that the query can be a job title, internal name, nickname, or degree name, adding meaning to the query parameter. However, the locale parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and format unspecified. Given only two parameters, this is a partial 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?
States a specific verb 'resolve' and the resource (job title, internal name, nickname, degree name) to canonical VOLO entity. Clearly distinguishes from siblings by instructing to call first when a person names their job, implying it's the entry point for name resolution.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this FIRST whenever a person names their job,' which is a direct when-to-use guideline. Also provides guidance on handling approximate matches and null returns, which informs the agent's follow-up behavior. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'FIRST' gives a strong priority.
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.