list_gapsFind missing skills requested across past job offers by returning every gap sorted by count, with high-frequency gaps first for learning prioritization.
Returns every gap in the radar sorted by count, highest first: the top entries are what most offers have asked for, and therefore the most urgent to learn.
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does: the result is exhaustive ('every gap'), ordered by count descending, and the ordering carries meaning about urgency. It does not describe pagination behavior or the fields of a gap record.
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 sentence with the operation and its ordering rule front-loaded, followed by a short interpretive clause. There is no filler and nothing is buried.
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-argument read-only listing tool this covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only omission is the shape of a returned gap entry, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.
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 is trivially fully covered and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about parameter meaning is left unclear because there is nothing to parametrize.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Returns every gap in the radar') and adds the ordering rule, so an agent immediately knows this is the enumeration counterpart to record_gap. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 criterion for sibling differentiation, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 clause 'the top entries are what most offers have asked for, and therefore the most urgent to learn' implies the tool is for prioritization, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.