list_open_rolesList the roles Genpio is currently hiring for, with title, department, location, type, summary and posting date, plus links to the full Markdown job description and the human-facing careers page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many roles to return. | |
| query | No | Optional filter matched against title, department, location and type. Omit to list every open role. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a live-scope nuance ('currently hiring for') and describes the return content (fields and links), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits. Credit is given for the scope constraint, but it remains within the baseline.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, then efficiently enumerates the returned fields and links. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 simple read-only listing tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned fields and the fact that it's a live snapshot. It doesn't explicitly state how 'query' filters results, but that's covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for the agent to use the tool 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% (both 'limit' and 'query' have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, relying entirely on the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and this fits.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('List the roles Genpio is currently hiring for') with specific resource ('roles') and scope ('currently hiring for'). It enumerates the returned fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_avatars or service_status, which are obviously unrelated.
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: use this to see current open roles with their details. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are distinctly different, so no alternative mapping is necessary. This aligns with 'clear context, 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.