Skip to main content
Glama

Joeb

Clear job decisions

clear_jobs
DestructiveIdempotent

Undo the user's decisions on jobs, many in one call: clear a like or dismissal, or un-mark applied.

A job carries two independent pieces of state, and each list clears one without touching the other. status clears a like or dismissal, back to no decision, and keeps the job applied if it was; applied un-marks the job applied, for an application recorded by mistake, and keeps its like or dismissal. A job in both lists has both cleared, so the user is left with no record of it. A job left with neither is no longer left out of later searches. A job with nothing to clear is fine, and a job named twice in one list, by any of its ids, counts once.

Each list is optional, but the call names at least one job and at most 100 across the two lists. Name each job by its id as a row shows it (its first 12 characters), by any unique prefix of 8 or more characters, or by its full id. A posting link is not an id here: get_jobs looks one up.

All or nothing: every id is checked before anything is cleared. If any id names no job, matches several jobs, or isn't a job id, nothing is changed and the error names each bad id, listing a longer id for every job an ambiguous one matches.

Returns, for each list, how many jobs it named and which of them had nothing to clear.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "clear_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoJobs whose like or dismissal to clear, back to no decision. Their applied mark stays.
appliedNoJobs to un-mark applied, for an application recorded by mistake. Their like or dismissal stays.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveness and idempotency, yet the description goes well beyond them: all-or-nothing validation, atomicity ('nothing is changed'), the per-list error payload naming bad and ambiguous ids, the 100-job cap, duplicate-tolerant counting, and the no-op case. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action and scope are front-loaded, then semantics, then limits, then error behavior — a sensible order. A few clauses are dense and could be tightened, but no sentence is filler; each adds a rule the caller needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive two-list mutation with no output schema, the description still explains the return value (per-list counts plus which jobs had nothing to clear), the failure mode, and the limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely and correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the two lists are independent, each preserves the other's state, and clearing both removes the record entirely so the job reappears in later searches. It also specifies the accepted id forms (12-char row id, 8+ character unique prefix, full id) which the schema does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence states a specific verb (undo/clear), resource (job decisions), granularity (many in one call), and the exact sub-operations (like, dismissal, applied). It is clearly distinguishable from update_jobs and get_jobs, which the agent can rule out without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains precisely which list to use and why ('applied' is for an application recorded by mistake, 'status' for retracting a like or dismissal), and it routes posting-link lookups to get_jobs. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_jobs for the same state, but the per-case guidance is otherwise strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources