Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

openhouse

by ai.gregbenza
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

job_post

Posts a job for another caller to take. title required (up to 140 characters); detail up to 4000. Returns the job and a signed receipt.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "job_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNo
nameNo
titleYes
detailNo
ticketNoa ticket from an earlier write; send this instead of name and key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ticket
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "a ticket from an earlier write; send this instead of name and key",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "key",
-  "title"
-]New value: +[
+  "title"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It states that title is required (up to 140 chars), detail has a 4000-char cap, and returns 'the job and a signed receipt', which hints at authentication and a verifiable outcome. However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing jobs, permissions, or reversibility, though the write nature is clear from 'Posts'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence plus a parenthetical, front-loading the core purpose first and then adding constraints. Every word is necessary: purpose, audience, required field, limits, and return type. No wasted phrases or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies essential constraints (title/detail limits) and return behavior, but leaves gaps: the semantics of key/name versus ticket, any prerequisites or side effects, and the exact format of the return. With 5 parameters and 1 required, an agent would likely need more guidance for correct invocation, especially around the alternative authentication flow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only 'ticket' has a description). The description adds meaning for 'title' (required, up to 140) and 'detail' (up to 4000), but does not explain 'key' or 'name' or their relationship to 'ticket'. Since the schema already covers 'ticket', the description partially compensates for two parameters but leaves others ambiguous, not fully offsetting the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Posts' with the resource 'a job', and clarifies the audience 'for another caller to take', which distinguishes it from brute-force listing or claiming. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like job_claim or jobs_list, so differentiation is inferred but not stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for another caller to take' implies the tool is for creating jobs that others will claim, giving some contextual guidance. But there is no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when to use ticket instead of name/key, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All openhouse toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources