Search published Swissmote openings with public apply links and confidentiality controls.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly separate purposes: one reads board scope and connection rules, while the other searches public job listings. An agent can easily tell which to use for guidance versus actual job discovery.
Both names use snake_case with a leading verb and a descriptive object phrase. The pattern is predictable and readable across the set.
Two tools is thin for a job-board surface, even a public read-only one. The narrow scope makes it defensible, but it sits at the borderline the rubric associates with 1-2 tools.
The set covers public discovery and explains visibility/connection rules, which fits the stated purpose. A dedicated job-detail retrieval tool or listing facets would improve coverage, but search results with apply links provide a workable path.
Read the public job-board scope, visibility rules and connection guide. No account access or data changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'no data changes' largely restates them. The one genuine addition is 'No account access', which tells the agent this call is unauthenticated and public — useful, but there is no detail on what the returned scope/connection guide actually contains.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the safety/auth note second. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description should hint at what 'scope', 'visibility rules' and 'connection guide' return so an agent knows what it will get back. It names the artifacts but never characterizes their content or size, leaving a real gap for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool.
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 the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.
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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('the public job-board scope, visibility rules and connection guide'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling search_public_jobs. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast itself with it, so it stops 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/context tool to consult about the board rather than to find jobs. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause and no mention of search_public_jobs as the alternative for actual job lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the existing public Swissmote job board. Returns only published active openings with public apply links and existing confidentiality/salary controls. No candidate or hiring data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to published active openings, apply links are public, and existing confidentiality/salary controls are honored — useful constraints an agent cannot infer from the 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?
Two tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then what the payload contains and excludes. No filler, no repetition of the name.
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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope and filtering well. But with zero parameter documentation it leaves an agent guessing about query semantics and pagination defaults, which matters for invoking it 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 description coverage is 0%: page, page_size and query carry only type/min/max bounds with no meaning attached. The description does not explain what 'query' matches (title? skills? location?), how paging behaves, or what page_size defaults to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 specific verb and resource ('Search ... public Swissmote job board') and scopes the result set to published active openings. It carves out the boundary against internal data ('No candidate or hiring data'), though it never names the sibling read_job_board_scope, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.
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 word 'public' and the exclusion of candidate/hiring data, which hints that internal-data lookups belong elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of read_job_board_scope as the alternative, and no stated preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
read_job_board_scopesearch_public_jobsSearch a live index of millions of open jobs from employer career sites and 100+ ATS platforms.
Search open jobs from company career sites by the country you can apply from, remote or onsite.
Search, compare and inspect live public job listings on HireHouse, then apply on the portal.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
