job-application-tracker-mcp

Update application

update_application

Modify an existing job or internship application by changing only the fields you provide, such as deadline, notes, role, company, type, source, or interview date.

Instructions

Update the deadline, notes, role, company, type, source or interview date of an existing application. Inputs: id of the application (from add_application or list_applications), and any of company, role, deadline as YYYY-MM-DD, notes, type (job or internship), source and interview_date as YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM. Only the fields you pass are changed; the rest stay the same. Pass an empty deadline, source or interview_date to clear it. Example prompt: "Update application 1 to set the deadline to 2026-11-20 and add a note about the referral."

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The id of the application.
`role`	No	New role title.
`type`	No	New type, "job" or "internship".
`notes`	No	New notes, replacing the old ones.
`source`	No	New source, such as LinkedIn or a career fair, or an empty string to clear it.
`company`	No	New company name.
`deadline`	No	New deadline as YYYY-MM-DD, or an empty string to clear it.
`interview_date`	No	New interview date as YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM, or an empty string to clear it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`application`	Yes	The application after the change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: only supplied fields change and the rest stay untouched, and empty deadline/source/interview_date clears those values. It does not mention validation failures or what the response contains, but the output schema covers returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and field list are front-loaded, followed by input notes, partial-update behavior, and an example. The example prompt is somewhat redundant given the explicit field list, but it is illustrative rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool, the definition covers purpose, inputs, update semantics, and clearing behavior. Annotations supply the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, including formats and enum values. The description mostly restates those formats (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM, job/internship) and only adds marginal meaning, such as the origin of the id and the clear-with-empty-string rule. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (an existing application) and enumerates exactly which fields can change (deadline, notes, role, company, type, source, interview_date). The field list implicitly separates it from add_application and from update_status, which handles status only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context: use it on an existing application identified by id, and it tells where the id comes from (add_application or list_applications). It also states partial-update semantics and how to clear a field. It never explicitly names a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server