list_job_sourcesList the job boards this server searches, with the countries each one covers and whether it runs by default. Free, no charge.
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": "list_job_sources"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful cost context ('Free, no charge') and says the call is read-oriented by describing returned metadata, but it does not state whether auth is required, whether results are paginated, or whether the source list can be empty. The 'free' note is a genuine addition, but coverage of operational traits is thin.
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 no waste; the resource and its returned fields are front-loaded and the cost note is appended last where it does least harm to scannability.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: that entries include country coverage and default status. It leaves open whether the full list is always returned or paginated, a small but real gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description spends its words on return content instead, which is the right allocation.
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 ('List the job boards this server searches') and further specifies what each entry contains (countries covered, default status). It implicitly separates itself from search_jobs by describing metadata discovery rather than job retrieval, though it never names that sibling.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/orientation call before searching. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use for…' statement, and search_jobs is not mentioned as the alternative.
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.