list_job_applicationsUse this when the user asks about the job applications (Bewerbungen) they have sent. Returns each application: to whom, when, with which attachment and how far delivery has got; "angenommen" means on its way, not delivered. Scope: cv:lesen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bewerbungen | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / bewerbungen / items / properties / eingewilligtAmRemoved value: -{
- "format": "date-time",
- "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / bewerbungen / items / properties / gesendetAmAdded value: +{
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / bewerbungen / items / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "format": "uuid",
- "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / bewerbungen / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "stelleId",
- "titel",
- "arbeitgeber",
- "empfaenger",
- "betreff",
- "anhang",
- "eingewilligtAm",
- "zustellung"
-]New value: +[
+ "stelleId",
+ "titel",
+ "arbeitgeber",
+ "empfaenger",
+ "betreff",
+ "anhang",
+ "zustellung",
+ "gesendetAm"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that: the enumerated return fields, the required scope 'cv:lesen', and a semantic caveat that 'angenommen' means in transit rather than delivered — a genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return shape and a caveat that prevents a specific misreading. Every clause (Bewerbungen gloss, field list, 'angenommen' warning, scope) carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be documented, and the scope plus the 'angenommen' caveat round out the behavioral picture for a zero-parameter read tool. The only small gap is whether the list is exhaustive or ordered, which matters when the user asks 'which applications are still pending'.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not attempt to. It correctly does not invent filtering options that the schema does not support.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('list' the job applications/Bewerbungen the user has sent) and enumerates what each record carries (recipient, date, attachment, delivery progress). It clearly separates itself from draft_job_application and send_job_application by being a read of already-sent applications, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 this when the user asks about the job applications they have sent' is an explicit trigger condition, clear enough to route an agent away from drafting or sending tools. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.
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.