Lists and ranks locally saved job-match analyses, flags whether saved job descriptions have changed, and clarifies that scores are not hiring probabilities.
读取和排序本机匹配分析，标明保存的 JD 是否已更新；分数不是录用概率。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| job_biz_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that the tool is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds limited but real behavioral context: results are sorted, saved JD entries are flagged as updated, and the score is explicitly not a hiring probability, which is a useful expectation to set. However, it does not mention pagination, the default limit of 100, or what the data reflects locally.
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 compact sentence with a front-loaded action. Every part carries information: it states the action, the sorting, the update flag, and the caveat about scores. There is no filler.
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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description largely covers what the tool returns: match analyses and JD-update flags. The main gap is that it does not explain the two undocumented parameters, so an agent cannot know how to filter results by job or control the result count.
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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the two parameters, both of which lack any description in the schema. The description does not mention 'limit' or 'job_biz_id' at all, so an agent could not infer the meaning of 'job_biz_id' (a filter by job) or the default cap of 100 results.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: '读取和排序本机匹配分析' (read and sort local match analyses). That clearly distinguishes this read-only listing tool from its siblings yupao_prepare_match and yupao_record_match, which prepare or create matches. The purpose is clear, though the scope (all matches vs. filtered by job) is not stated explicitly.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of yupao_prepare_match or yupao_record_match. It never states when this listing should be preferred, nor when it should not be used. Only the phrase '读取' implies a listing use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.