根据 工作经验要求、学历来要求、公司性质（例如：国企、外企、民营）、工作地点、薪资上下限、薪资类型（“月薪”或“年薪”）、职位名称关键词、公司名称 参数获取匹配的职位列表
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 分页页码，约定：0 表示第 1 页；若不传，默认按 0 处理 | |
| address | No | 工作地点 | |
| jobName | No | 职位名称 | |
| eduLevel | No | 学历要求 | |
| salaryCap | No | 薪资上限 | |
| compNature | No | 公司性质（例如：国企、外企、民营） | |
| salaryKind | No | 薪资类型（“月薪”或“年薪”） | |
| companyName | No | 公司名称 | |
| salaryFloor | No | 薪资下限 | |
| workExperience | No | 工作经验要求 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'gets a matching job list' and lists filters; it does not reveal pagination behavior, result ordering, authentication needs, or how filters combine (e.g., AND/OR). This is a significant gap for a search tool with a `page` parameter.
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 long run-on sentence that packs in all filter criteria. It is not excessively verbose, but it lacks structuring and reads as a list dump. It could be more concise and front-loaded by stating the core purpose first and then the filters.
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?
The tool has 10 optional parameters but no output schema and no annotations. The description only says a matching job list is returned, omitting any mention of pagination, sorting, default behavior, or result format. Given the complexity and the existence of a sibling `search-jobs` tool, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably select and use it.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slightly more meaning by calling `jobName` a '职位名称关键词' (job title keyword) and by grouping salary bounds as '薪资上下限', but it largely repeats what the schema already documents. It makes no major contribution beyond the schema.
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 states the tool retrieves a matching job list based on several specific filter criteria (experience, education, company nature, location, salary, etc.), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool `search-jobs`, which appears to have a similar generic purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use `user-search-job` versus `search-jobs` or any other sibling. The description only explains what the tool does, not the context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.
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.
