list_sourcesList the boards Jobbi indexes, with current gig counts, home URLs and payout grades.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| by_lane | No | ||
| sources | Yes | Keyed by board key | |
| generated | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "by_lane": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "generated": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sources": {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "home": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "payout_grade": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "description": "Keyed by board key",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "total",
+ "sources"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world (openWorldHint=false), which is the full safety profile for this call. The description adds only the payload fields, which the output schema already covers, so it contributes limited behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.
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 zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned fields follow immediately.
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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering the return shape, and zero parameters, the description covers what an agent needs. It would be complete at 5 only if it hinted at ordering or scale of the board list.
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 no parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'List the boards Jobbi indexes,' and it names what each entry carries (gig counts, home URLs, payout grades). The resource ('boards/sources') is clearly distinct from the gig-oriented siblings (find_jobs, get_gig, list_gigs), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. The zero-parameter nature makes the intent somewhat self-evident, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.
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.