list_areasImpact areas (categories) with the number of open roles in each.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_areas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| areas | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "areas": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "open_roles": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "areas"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds useful context that each entry includes an open-role count, but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or freshness of that count.
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 or redundancy. It is terse to the point of being a noun phrase rather than a full statement of action, which slightly limits its utility.
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 no-parameter enumeration tool with full annotation coverage and an existing output schema, this is close to sufficient — the description says what the entities are and what each carries. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, whether all areas are returned).
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 schema-based baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related the description could add, and it does not mislead about inputs.
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 names the resource ('impact areas (categories)') and the returned metric ('number of open roles in each'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool is about. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list' and offers no differentiation from siblings, but none of the siblings (get_job, get_organization, search_jobs) overlap with area enumeration.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor any precondition or exclusion. The use case (browsing categories and open-role counts) can only be inferred from the returned fields, which is minimal 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.