onet_skillsSkills for an occupation. Returns the ranked skill elements (name, description, importance score) for an O*NET-SOC code. Example: onet_skills({ code: "15-1252.00", _apiKey: "username:password" })
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | O*NET-SOC occupation code, e.g. "15-1252.00" | |
| _apiKey | Yes | O*NET credentials as "username:password" (services.onetcenter.org/developer/signup) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the return fields (name, description, importance score) and that results are ranked, which informs expected output shape. No annotation contradiction.
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 two efficient sentences plus a clarifying example. It front-loads the core purpose ('Skills for an occupation') and then specifies return details, with zero filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.
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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers what is returned (fields and ranking) and provides a concrete invocation example. With no output schema present, the return-shape disclosure is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%: both 'code' and '_apiKey' have full descriptions in the schema. The description's example adds concrete value formatting but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('ranked skill elements') targeted at an O*NET-SOC code, which is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like onet_technology or onet_occupation, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies usage through its title 'Onet Skills' and the explicit example call, making it evident when an agent needs skills information for an occupation. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance relative to sibling onet tools (e.g., when to prefer onet_technology).
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.