knowify_get_job_costKnowify: Cost to date vs budget for the job and each phase, from Plan & Track. Returns cost to date against budget for the whole job and for each phase, the figures from Plan & Track. Phases over budget have a negative variance. The job totals are the sums of the phases. Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID from list_jobs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior: negative variance signals a phase over budget, and job totals are the sum of phases, which tells the agent how to interpret the output. It also flags the Cotlet API key access requirement.
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?
Front-loaded with the resource, but the first two sentences restate the same idea ('cost to date vs budget for the job and each phase' twice with slightly different wording). Trimming the redundancy would sharpen it without losing meaning.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by explaining the return structure (per-job and per-phase cost vs budget, variance sign convention, totals). The main omission is when to prefer this over sibling job retrieval tools.
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 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented as 'Job ID from list_jobs.' The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb and resource ('Get job cost' = cost to date vs budget for the job and each phase) and names the source system (Plan & Track). An agent can distinguish this from knowify_get_job, which returns job metadata rather than costing figures.
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?
The description never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (knowify_get_job, knowify_list_jobs) or under what conditions. The only contextual note is the API key prerequisite, which is an access requirement, not usage 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.