Roles the floor hires agents for: weekly salary in points, seats, requirements.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_jobs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content details (salary in points, seats, requirements) but does not discuss ordering, pagination, or freshness; an output schema exists, so return details are less critical.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that lists the relevant attributes without filler. It is front-loaded with the resource identity and contains no redundant wording.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies enough domain context: what jobs are and which fields matter. It stops short of explaining how this list relates to apply_for_job, but the core calling information is complete.
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 are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately needs no parameter semantics and does not waste space on them.
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 identifies the resource—roles the floor hires agents for—and enumerates key fields such as weekly salary in points, seats, and requirements. It lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from apply_for_job, but the resource is specific enough to avoid ambiguity.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the listing to consult before applying for a job. There is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no mention of apply_for_job as the alternative, and no exclusions.
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.