List open jobs (state filter optional; mine=true for your own). Needs your apiKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mine | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| 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. |
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?
The readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish this as a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds only the authentication requirement ('Needs your apiKey'), which is useful but largely duplicated by the apiKey parameter's schema description; no rate limits, pagination, or ordering behavior is disclosed.
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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action first and filter details in parentheses. The final sentence about apiKey is somewhat duplicative of the schema but still functional.
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?
Given no output schema and safe read annotations, the description is adequate for a simple list tool, but it omits what 'open' means and what values 'state' accepts. These gaps could cause an agent to call it with an invalid or unintended filter.
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 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain 'mine' ('for your own') and frames 'state' as an optional filter, but it provides no allowed values or format for 'state', leaving that parameter ambiguous.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List open jobs') and clarifies the default scope as open jobs. It is distinguishable from get_job (single job) and list_applicants/list_mandates, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one.
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?
It implies usage for the 'mine' flag ('mine=true for your own') and notes that 'state' is an optional filter. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no alternative tool routing, and no indication of what values 'state' accepts.
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.