list_companiesList Kansas City companies hiring developers, ordered by open job count, and include each company's role count and link.
List Kansas City companies that currently have open developer roles, ordered by number of open jobs. Returns each company with its open-role count and a link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the result is read-only, sorted by open role count, and includes company plus count/link. It could additionally disclose limits/pagination, but it is transparent for a simple list operation.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action and ordering, the second states the returned fields. No filler and the key purpose is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter read-only list endpoint, the description covers purpose, sort order, and output fields. It could specify the destination or form of the link and any pagination/limit, but the core call context is clear.
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 has zero parameterspublications, so no parameter meaning is needed; baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing ambiguous for the agent to resolve.
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?
Names a specific resource (Kansas City companies with open developer roles), a concrete action (list), and defines the output. The sibling tools like get_job and search_jobs are clearly distinct because this one returns companies, not individual jobs.
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 intended use is strongly implied by the description: call this when you want companies hiring developers in Kansas City. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as search_jobs or get_company.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.