occupations_for_certificationWhat occupations does this certification serve?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A certification id, copied from a search result's id field | |
| limit | No | Optional page size (default 20, at most 50) | |
| offset | No | Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional page size (default 20, at most 50)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The certification id"New value: +"A certification id, copied from a search result's id field"Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "LU_CERT_ONET_13108200_8F3480AC7A"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the query semantics—no mention of pagination, ordering, or what the result contains—so it does not go 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?
The description is a single short question with no filler and the essential relationship is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 low-complexity read-only lookup, the description plus the fully documented schema is nearly sufficient. Since there is no output schema, stating the return shape or pagination behavior would add value, but limit/offset are already documented and the question implies a list of occupations.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions and examples for id, limit, and offset. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already documents, so it receives the baseline score of 3.
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 identifies the resource (a certification) and the requested result (the occupations it serves), so an agent can infer the direction of the query. It is not phrased as an imperative like 'list' or 'return', and it does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling certifications_for_occupation, which keeps it from a 5.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings such as certifications_for_occupation or related_certifications. It only restates the purpose, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from tool names.
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.