get_join_our_teamHiring page text, office address, phone and email. Use when the person asks about jobs at YesTechie. (REST: GET /api/agent/v0/join-our-team)
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": "get_join_our_team"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably: the "(REST: GET /api/agent/v0/join-our-team)" note signals a non-mutating read, and the enumeration of returned content tells the agent what it gets back. Missing are any notes on freshness of the page data or whether the address/phone are the same as those from get_contact_info.
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?
Two short, front-loaded clauses: content first, then trigger, with the REST endpoint parenthetical as trailing scaffolding. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint string is developer-facing noise the agent rarely needs.
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 zero-parameter read of a static marketing page with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and when to call it. A brief pointer to the related submission tool would close the remaining gap, but nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.
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 names the resource (the hiring/join-our-team page) and enumerates its contents: hiring page text, office address, phone and email. This is specific enough for an agent to know what will be returned, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with near-siblings like get_contact_info or get_team that likely return overlapping contact data.
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?
"Use when the person asks about jobs at YesTechie" gives a clear triggering condition rather than leaving usage implicit. It stops short of an exclusion clause — an agent is not told to prefer submit_join_application when the user wants to actually apply rather than read about openings, even though that sibling exists.
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.