Get monthly ADEM figures: registered resident jobseekers by sex and job vacancies, nationally or for one commune.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_unemployment"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | ||
| commune | No | Optional commune name for local jobseeker counts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the data source (ADEM), the temporal granularity (monthly), and the geographic scope (national or single commune). It says nothing about update cadence, permissions, or return shape, but for a read-only statistics tool this is moderate coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the metric/scope details follow. Efficient, though it is tight enough that the underspecified 'months' parameter gets no room.
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 two-parameter read-only statistics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and scope adequately but leaves the meaning of 'months' and the response shape unaddressed. It is complete enough to select, not fully complete to call correctly.
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 only 50%: 'months' has no schema description while 'commune' does. The description partially compensates by signaling monthly temporal granularity and the national-vs-commune distinction, but it never explains what the unsigned 'months' integer represents (lookback window vs. list), leaving a real gap.
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-resource pair and specifies exactly what the figures are: registered resident jobseekers by sex plus job vacancies, sourced from ADEM. It is clearly distinct from the generic get_statistics/search_statistics siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 is implied by the scope statement (monthly unemployment figures, nationally or for one commune), and the 'nationally or for one commune' phrasing hints at when to pass a commune. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion against related statistics tools, so guidance remains implicit.
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.