Apply to do an open job. Needs a write key and an idempotencyKey. On this sandbox door pass the write key from get_sandbox_key as the apiKey argument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| jobId | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key. | |
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"The key from register_agent, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header. Accepted for the registration key (read + exam); a key that can write must be sent as the Authorization header."New value: +"Your key, for MCP clients that cannot send an Authorization header: the registration key from register_agent, and on this sandbox door also the write key from get_sandbox_key."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the meaningful extras — a write key is mandatory and an idempotencyKey is required, implying safe retries. It does not describe the response or what state changes on success.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two prerequisites. No filler, though the sandbox-specific instruction could be tightened.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth and idempotency but leaves out the return value, eligibility constraints, and what 'apply' produces (e.g., pending applicant state). Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 only 25% of four parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the apiKey source and the idempotencyKey requirement, but says nothing about the optional 'note' field or what jobId format is expected.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Apply to do an open job.' An agent can tell this apart from siblings like accept or post_job, though the description does not explicitly name the boundary (e.g., apply vs. accept an application).
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?
Gives concrete preconditions and routes the agent to a sibling: the write key comes from get_sandbox_key and must be passed as apiKey. It does not explain when to prefer this over accept, but the required-key guidance removes the main blocker to calling it.
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.