add_blocklist_entryBlock an employer so ApplyAll will not apply there.
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": {
"text": "<text>"
},
"name": "add_blocklist_entry"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Employer name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the user-facing effect ('will not apply there') but does not disclose behavior such as duplicate blocklist entries or whether blocking is persistent. With annotations present, the bar is lower and this meets it minimally.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Block an employer') and delivers the consequence with no filler or repetition of the schema. Every word 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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description captures the operation and its purpose. It is slightly incomplete as a standalone guide because it omits removal/undo guidance and duplicate-entry behavior, but these are largely inferable from sibling names and annotations.
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 the single 'text' parameter is already documented as 'Employer name.' The description reinforces that semantic with 'employer' but adds no extra detail such as matching rules, required format, or case sensitivity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Block') and resource ('an employer') and states the observable consequence ('ApplyAll will not apply there'). This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling remove_blocklist_entry and tells the agent exactly what operation is performed.
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 consequence 'so ApplyAll will not apply there' implies the tool is for preventing applications to a specific employer. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention the natural inverse action (remove_blocklist_entry), so usage guidance is only implicit.
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.