Apply an inbox item's suggested action, such as adding an application to the board or recording a rejection. Confirm the specific action with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Inbox item id | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true after the user confirms applying this suggestion |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by giving examples of the actual effects (adding an application, recording a rejection) and reinforces the confirmation step. It doesn't contradict annotations, and it provides actionable behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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 concise sentences front-load the core action and examples, followed by a direct usage instruction. There is no filler or redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
The description covers the essential actions and the prerequisite confirmation step. Since there is an output schema, return value details are not required. It could have mentioned the irreversible nature or side effects more explicitly, but destructiveHint is already annotated, so the combination is adequate for an agent to call it 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description merely reiterates the confirmation requirement without adding new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the format of item_id or elaborate on the confirmed constraint beyond what's present, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clear verb+resource: 'Apply an inbox item's suggested action' and provides concrete examples (adding to board, recording rejection). This distinguishes it from sibling actions like acknowledge, decline, or dismiss, which are more generic or different in intent.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to confirm with the user first, which is a clear usage requirement. However, it does not differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inbox.acknowledge or inbox.decline, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions for other inbox operations. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
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.
The tools are largely distinct due to the domain-prefixed naming (inbox, jobs, signals, etc.) and detailed descriptions. While there is some overlap among inbox actions like acknowledge, apply_suggestion, and decline, the descriptions clarify each behavior. The signals and recommendations sub-groups also have clear boundaries, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent pattern of domain.entity.action or domain.action (e.g., inbox.list, jobs.interviews.add, signals.recommendations.dismiss). This uniform camelCase-with-dots convention makes the set highly predictable and easy to navigate.
At 55 tools, the server far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' as per the calibration. While the broad domain of job search management justifies numerous operations, the count is still overwhelming and could overwhelm agents or cause selection errors. Several signal-related tools could potentially be consolidated without compromising functionality.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of job applications: inbox management (list, get, draft, send), job tracking (add, update, archive, delete), interviews (add, update, delete), offers (create, update, accept, decline, negotiation), and company signals (track, pause, recommend, block). There are no obvious missing operations for the core workflows.
