jobctl

Add application

add_application

Track a new job application. Pass either a single raw line — add_application({raw: "Bosch, Tech Lead, prio A, due friday, remote, via LinkedIn"}) — or structured fields (company and role required then). Returns the created application and possible-duplicate warnings; if duplicates are listed, tell the user instead of creating again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Free-form line: "Company, Role, prio A\|B\|C, due <date>, remote\|hybrid\|onsite, via <source>, https://…, in <location>, applied <date>"
`url`	No	Link to the job posting
`role`	No
`remote`	No
`source`	No	LinkedIn, referral, recruiter, Easy Apply…
`status`	No
`company`	No
`location`	No
`priority`	No	A = top priority
`applied_at`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD
`cv_variant`	No	Which CV was sent: DE, EN, AI-focused…
`match_notes`	No	Markdown match assessment: why the candidate fits this role — strengths vs requirements, gaps, level/salary advice, process notes. Save your vacancy analysis here so it is not lost; shown as an expandable section in the dashboard.
`next_action`	No	e.g. "follow-up", "thank-you email"
`remote_note`	No	e.g. "2 days office"
`salary_asked`	No	What the candidate asked for — yearly gross EUR as a plain number, e.g. 110000
`salary_range`	No	Posting salary range upper bound — yearly gross EUR, plain number
`next_action_due`	No	ISO date YYYY-MM-DD
`salary_range_min`	No	Posting salary range lower bound — yearly gross EUR, plain number
`next_interview_at`	No	ISO datetime, e.g. 2026-07-20T14:00:00+02:00

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating that the tool creates a new application and returns possible-duplicate warnings, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions observed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is remarkably concise, using 2-3 sentences to convey purpose, usage modes, and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the two input modes, mentions required fields, and covers return value behavior. However, it could briefly indicate when to use specific structured fields (e.g., status, url) for completeness, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 74% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the raw parameter format in detail and indicating that 'company' and 'role' are required in structured mode (despite schema not marking them required). This helps the agent understand usage beyond schema constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as tracking a new job application. It distinguishes two input modes (raw line or structured fields) and implies the action of creation. The tool name itself is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces it, differentiating it from siblings like update_application or list_applications.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage guidance on how to input data (raw vs structured) and what to do on duplicate detection. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like update_application for existing entries or list_applications for viewing, so the agent must infer context from the name alone. The guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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

All jobctl tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: application, note, analysis attachment, file attachment, interview file, application detail, due actions, planned schedule, application listing, interview logging, and application updates. Even the three 'attach' tools are clearly differentiated by purpose (analysis vs CV/cover letter vs interview prep). The only potential overlap between get_due and get_planned is explicitly resolved in the descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (add_application, get_application, list_applications, update_application, attach_analysis, log_interview, etc.). The verb prefix accurately reflects the action, and nouns are singular for single-item operations and plural for list operations, maintaining a predictable convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a job application tracking domain. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy, and the count is neither sparse nor overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of an application: create, read, list, update, plus notes, attachments, analysis, and interview logging. Minor gaps exist—there is no explicit delete or archive tool (though status updates can archive), and interviews cannot be directly updated or removed after logging—but these are workable within the existing surface.

Resources

Need Help?