match_profileBackward-compatible alias of match_jobs: skills[] (+ role_hint, remote_only, limit) → ranked verified roles with fit explanation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| skills | Yes | Key skills / technologies, e.g. ["python","llm","rag"] | |
| role_hint | No | Target role, e.g. "ML engineer" | |
| remote_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety and side effects are covered. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing the output nature: ranked verified roles with fit explanation, and it reassures that behavior is backward-compatible with match_jobs. No contradiction with annotations.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the alias identity and then compactly maps inputs to outputs. Every element contributes: alias, parameter list, optionality, and return type. There is no filler or redundancy.
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, but the description provides the essential return information: ranked verified roles with a fit explanation. Combined with the annotation safety profile and the explicit parameter list, the definition is sufficiently complete for a thin alias wrapper. Minor missing details such as exact response shape are not critical given the alias relationship.
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?
The description enumerates all four parameters and uses parentheses to indicate optionality, which aligns with the schema's required skills. However, it does not add meaningful detail for remote_only or limit beyond their names, and schema description coverage is only 50%, so the description only partially compensates for parameters without descriptions.
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 identifies the tool as a backward-compatible alias of match_jobs and specifies the exact transformation: skills[] plus optional modifiers to ranked verified roles with fit explanation. This gives an agent a specific verb, resource, and outcome, and immediately connects it to the sibling match_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?
By stating that this is an alias of match_jobs, the description gives clear context that the same use conditions apply; the agent can infer that this is the legacy-compatible variant of the match_jobs sibling. It does not provide explicit exclusions or a strong 'prefer X over Y' rule, but the alias relationship is usable guidance.
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.