check_job_postingWhether an employer's job posting link was still open when Applystead last read it, with its listed pay. Postings Applystead does not track are reported as unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The https link to the employer's job posting. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: results reflect Applystead's last read rather than a live fetch, so staleness is possible, and untracked postings return 'unknown' instead of erroring. That is useful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core outcome and followed by two qualifying clauses (source of truth, unknown fallback). Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: open/closed status, listed pay, and an 'unknown' outcome for untracked postings. It leaves the exact response shape (field names, possible values) unspecified, which is a minor gap for a simple single-param read tool.
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 url parameter is already fully documented with format and length constraints. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 states a specific action (checking a job posting's open status) and even names the payload returned (listed pay). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_company_jobs or search_jobs, but the scope (a single known URL, cached snapshot) is clear enough for an agent to tell it apart in practice.
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: the url parameter and the phrase 'was still open' suggest this is for verifying a specific posting link rather than discovering jobs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer search_jobs or get_company_jobs, and no prerequisites mentioned.
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.