get_locationsGet the hierarchical applicant-location taxonomy supported by Curaiz job search, including exact names and slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locations | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a useful detail — the taxonomy is hierarchical and includes exact names and slugs — but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as formatting or limitations. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 lookup that has an output schema, the description fully communicates what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values in prose, and the description covers the key selection context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters because none exist, earning the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('hierarchical applicant-location taxonomy supported by Curaiz job search'), and further clarifies the output includes 'exact names and slugs.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling job-focused tools.
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 provides clear context that this tool retrieves location taxonomy for Curaiz job search, making it obvious when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct resource and sibling set make confusion unlikely.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: finding jobs, retrieving job details, and getting location taxonomy. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: find_recent_jobs, get_job_details, get_locations. This is predictable and clear.
With 3 tools, the server is lean but each tool is essential to the core workflow (search, detail retrieval, location support). This falls within the well-scoped range.
The server covers search, details, and locations, but lacks a direct way to filter jobs by location or other criteria from the search tool. Agents must manually correlate location slugs with job results, which is a significant limitation for location-specific queries.