List the ATS and job-board sources JobsPipe normalizes into a single JSON schema, with coverage and freshness notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_contains | No | Optional case-insensitive substring to filter sources by name (e.g. "workday"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about normalizing into a single JSON schema and including coverage/freshness notes, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no waste. Every word adds value.
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 simple listing tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully covers its behavior and return values. It mentions the key output aspects (sources, coverage, freshness), making it 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%, with the single optional parameter already well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not repeat or add to parameter semantics, which is acceptable given high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ATS and job-board sources JobsPipe normalizes'), including details about output ('coverage and freshness notes'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_jobs and search_upwork_jobs.
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 implies the tool is for listing sources, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_jobs or list_pricing_plans. No when-not or explicit usage context is provided.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct: listing sources and pricing plans are not easily confused with searching jobs. The only overlap is between search_jobs and search_upwork_jobs, since Upwork is presumably one of the 30+ sources, but the Upwork-specific tool provides unique budget and client signals that differentiate it.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_job_sources, list_pricing_plans, search_jobs, search_upwork_jobs. The naming makes the action and target resource predictable across the entire set.
Four tools is a tightly scoped set for a job-aggregation server, covering source discovery, plan information, general search, and specialized Upwork search. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary, and the count is neither thin nor bloated.
The core read-only domain is covered: agents can list sources, view pricing plans, search across all sources, and search Upwork specifically. Minor gaps such as a dedicated job-detail fetcher or source-filtered search could be workoundable, but they do not break the primary workflow.