register_interestTell us about a task type you need that nobody offers yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional: details of what you need. | |
| type | Yes | The kind of work you need, e.g. legal-review-au. | |
| budget_usd | No | Optional: what you would pay, in US dollars. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / budget_usd / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional: what you would pay, in US dollars."Input schema / properties / note / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional: details of what you need."Input schema / properties / type / descriptionAdded value: +"The kind of work you need, e.g. legal-review-au."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say what registering actually does (stores demand? notifies sellers? creates a listing?), whether an account is required, or whether the submission is reversible or visible to others.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the essential qualifier ('nobody offers yet') comes first. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave the tool's mechanics unexplained.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are covered. However, for a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) with no further annotation detail, the description omits the post-call behavior an agent would need to set expectations.
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%, with 'type', 'note', and 'budget_usd' each documented, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, example, or constraint beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 action (register/tell us) applied to a specific resource (a task type nobody offers yet), which is clearer than the bare name. It implies a demand-signal tool distinct from create_task, but never names that sibling, so the distinction must be inferred.
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 phrase 'that nobody offers yet' implicitly defines the condition for use, but the description never states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as create_task or request_connector. Usage must be inferred from the qualifier.
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.