list_applicationsView all tracked job applications in your pipeline, optionally filtered by status, to monitor progress and identify next steps.
List tracked applications, optionally filtered by pipeline status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | If given, only return applications in this status. Omit for all. |
| 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 burden. 'List' accurately implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the optional status filter is disclosed. It does not add extra details like pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool the core behavior is sufficiently transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the main purpose and the optional filter efficiently.
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 one-parameter list tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. No critical information is missing.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single status parameter. The description merely reiterates that filtering is optional, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond the 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tracked applications'), including the optional filter by pipeline status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like track_application (a write operation) and search_jobs (searching for new 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 usage is clear: use this tool to retrieve tracked applications, optionally filtering by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names and the read-only nature of the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.