get_applicationFull detail of one application: all fields, contacts, recent timeline events, and whether a company analysis is attached (fetch it via the dashboard or attach_analysis to replace).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (fields, contacts, timeline events, analysis presence). It does not disclose any potential side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only tool. No contradictions.
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 efficiently conveys the tool's output and related actions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be breaking into two sentences for clarity.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (fields, contacts, timeline events, analysis flag). It also mentions related tools for analysis retrieval. It does not cover potential pagination or limits on timeline events, but that is acceptable for a tool of this complexity.
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 has one required 'id' parameter with 0% coverage in description. The description adds no explanation of the parameter, despite low coverage requiring compensation. The schema itself provides type and format, but the description could have clarified how to obtain the application ID.
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 clearly states 'Full detail of one application: all fields, contacts, recent timeline events, and whether a company analysis is attached.' It specifies the verb (get detail) and the resource (one application), and distinguishes from siblings like list_applications and attach_analysis.
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 provides alternatives for fetching analysis ('fetch it via the dashboard or attach_analysis to replace'), which indirectly guides when to use this tool vs. others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or exclusion criteria.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.