run_wellfound_locationsThe list of Wellfound job locations (US cities, US states, countries and other places) with the slug to use as the location in Wellfound jobs search. Optional type and name filters. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Type. Options: city = US city, state = US state, other = Other (countries, regions, non-US cities) | |
| keyword | No | Name contains. e.g. york |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the returned shape (locations with slugs) and the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is actionable billing information.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and downstream use, followed by filters and cost. Efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical enumeration is slightly verbose.
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 output schema, the description compensates by explaining what is returned (locations plus the usable slug) and that filters are optional, which is sufficient for a simple 2-parameter lookup tool. Only minor workflow/alternative routing is missing.
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 100%, so both parameters (type enum, keyword) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only restates that filters are optional and refers to 'name' where the schema uses 'keyword', adding no real semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the resource (Wellfound job locations: US cities, states, countries, other places) and adds the key downstream purpose: the returned slug is used as the location parameter in Wellfound jobs search. It is specific about content but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like run_wellfound_jobs_search, so it stops short of 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 implies usage by noting the slug feeds Wellfound jobs search, which suggests this is a lookup step before searching jobs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative tool, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
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.