Job Boards MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond the schema — the required rendering of the returned markdown table without summarizing — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, pagination behavior, or result completeness.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the output mandate. Both sentences earn their place, though the description is arguably under-sized for a six-parameter search tool.

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?

The rich schema covers inputs, but with no output schema the description should explain the return shape. It hints at a markdown table but never says what columns or fields come back, leaving a notable gap for an agent invoking it.

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%, with all six parameters (title, location, company, daysAgo, limit, offset) documented including defaults, formats, and pagination hints. The description adds nothing further, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 jobs from Ashby job boards'), and naming the source implicitly distinguishes it from the other job-board siblings like get_gem_jobs and get_greenhouse_jobs. It does not, however, describe the filtering capability that the schema exposes.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools or when to prefer one board over another. Routing is left entirely to the tool name; the only instruction is about output rendering.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the return format (a markdown table) plus a display constraint, which is valuable. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, auth, or result ordering beyond what the schema already covers.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no redundant restating of schema details. Every sentence carries weight.

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 search tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece — the return format and display obligation. Minor gaps only, such as no mention of result ordering.

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 schema documents every parameter with examples (title substrings, 'remote' location, daysAgo default 7, nextOffset pagination). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 jobs from Gem job boards') and names the source provider, which is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like get_greenhouse_jobs and get_lever_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?

Usage context is implied by 'from Gem job boards' and the second sentence gives an output-handling rule, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the result is a markdown table that must be rendered verbatim rather than summarized. It says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, empty-result behavior, or how failures surface, leaving significant gaps for a network-backed search tool.

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, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first establishes the tool's scope and the second carries a non-obvious output contract that an agent would otherwise get wrong. No filler.

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?

Parameters and pagination are well covered by the schema and the output-rendering rule is captured, but as one of five near-identical job-board tools the definition never explains why or when to pick this source over its siblings. Nothing about result counts, empty searches, or error behavior is provided.

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%, with each of the six parameters (including pagination via limit/offset and the daysAgo default) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 jobs from Greenhouse job boards"), which distinguishes it from the sibling ATS tools by data source (Ashby, Gem, Lever, SmartRecruiters). It is clear but stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or clarifying scope, and placing the source in the title's shadow means the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_ashby_jobs, get_lever_jobs, or the other siblings, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only directive concerns output handling (display the table fully), not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 usefully discloses the return format (a full markdown table that must not be summarized), which substitutes for the missing output schema, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, result aggregation across boards, or pagination behavior despite the schema's nextOffset hint.

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 sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the formatting directive follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing real information.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format but omits that title and location are mandatory, that results are paginated via nextOffset, and how the board search relates to the sibling tools. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent must infer from the schema.

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%, with each of the six parameters documented including defaults, ranges, and matching semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 clear verb and resource ("Get jobs from Lever job boards"), and naming Lever inherently distinguishes it from get_ashby_jobs, get_greenhouse_jobs, and the other board-specific siblings. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent (e.g. "use get_greenhouse_jobs for Greenhouse"), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the four sibling job-board tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Its second sentence is a display instruction for the agent's response, not a usage condition for invoking the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the result is a markdown table that must be reproduced verbatim rather than summarized. It says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or result completeness/pagination, so the disclosure is partial.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the purpose stated first and the output-handling constraint second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully specifies the return format (a markdown table to be shown in full), and the schema fully documents all six parameters including pagination via nextOffset. What is missing is any guidance on choosing this board over its siblings or on the required title/location semantics, leaving a gap for a tool with two required parameters.

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%, so all six parameters (title, location, limit, offset, company, daysAgo) are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get jobs from SmartRecruiters job boards'), and the platform name implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (get_ashby_jobs, get_gem_jobs, get_greenhouse_jobs, get_lever_jobs). It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to pick this tool for SmartRecruiters postings specifically, but an agent can route correctly from the platform name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the four sibling job-board tools, nor on prerequisites such as whether title and location must be meaningful strings or how 'remote' interacts with a country. The only instruction present ('always display the full markdown table') governs output handling, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.