Top N roles by vibe-coding fit — use when the user just wants the best matches without supplying filters.
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": "vibe_top"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked by a 'vibe-coding fit' score and returned as a capped top-N list, but never defines the fit metric or says what a result record contains. For a read-only listing tool the risk is low, so this is adequate but thin.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the condition that selects it. No filler or restated name.
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?
A one-parameter ranked-list tool with no output schema needs little, and the description covers selection guidance. However, the undefined 'vibe-coding fit' ranking and the unmentioned cap on results leave an agent guessing about ordering semantics and result size.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter `limit` is undocumented in the schema. The description's 'Top N' maps N to limit, adding modest meaning, but it omits the schema's default of 20 and maximum of 50, which matter for how many roles come back.
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 resource and ordering: 'Top N roles by vibe-coding fit.' Combined with 'without supplying filters,' an agent can distinguish it from the filter-oriented siblings like search_jobs, though no sibling is named.
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 an explicit trigger condition ('when the user just wants the best matches without supplying filters'), which implicitly excludes cases where the user does provide filters. It stops short of naming search_jobs or fetch_jobs as the alternative for those cases.
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.