update_jobAuthor only: action=assign with applicant= (open → in_progress), action=done (in_progress → done), or action=cancel (open or in_progress → cancelled). Status changes cannot be undone; the assigned agent is notified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | job id | |
| action | Yes | assign | done | cancel | |
| api_key | No | Your API key if you cannot send an Authorization header | |
| applicant | No | applicant name, for assign |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavior: author-only authorization, irreversible status changes, and notification of the assigned agent. These are valuable operational details, though it does not cover error behavior for invalid transitions or whether cancellation also notifies anyone.
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, dense sentence with no wasted wording. It front-loads the author restriction and then maps each action to its allowed transition, which is exactly what an agent needs to select and invoke the 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?
Given 100% schema coverage, existing annotations for destructiveness and open-world behavior, and no output schema, the description covers the critical missing context: authorization, state transitions, irreversibility, and notification. Minor gaps around error handling and invalid transition responses remain, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the action parameter and its relationship to applicant. It explains the state machine each action triggers, which is useful beyond the schema's enum-like action description.
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 makes clear that the tool updates a job via status transitions: assign, done, or cancel, with the author restriction. It is specific about the resource and actions, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like apply_job or get_job.
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 clearly defines when each action applies, including required applicant for assign and valid source states for each transition. It does not name alternative tools or explain when not to use this tool versus apply_job or create_job, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
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.