Reads a job offer's application form details, including application type, optional note, available CV files, and additional forms, without submitting anything.
Lee el formulario de postulación de la oferta (requiere sesión): tipo de postulación, nota opcional, archivos de CV disponibles y formularios adicionales. No envía nada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the auth requirement (session) and that nothing is submitted, which are useful behavioral facts beyond the schema. It says nothing about failure modes, e.g. whether the form is unavailable, the user already applied, or the offer is closed — meaningful gaps for a session-gated read.
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 whose core action comes first, followed by the returned fields and a short disambiguating clause. 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned data, which is the main missing piece. The remaining gap is the untyped id parameter and edge-case behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the definition is close to sufficient.
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?
One required parameter (id) at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. "de la oferta" implies id is the offer identifier, which is partial compensation, but the parameter is never named or constrained (e.g. must be an offer id from buscar-ofertas/detalle-de-oferta).
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?
Specific verb + resource ("Lee el formulario de postulación de la oferta") followed by an enumeration of exactly what is retrieved: tipo de postulación, nota, CVs disponibles, formularios adicionales. The closing "No envía nada" distinguishes it from the write sibling postular-a-oferta without opening either schema.
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?
States a concrete prerequisite ("requiere sesión") and clarifies the read-only nature with "No envía nada", which implies applying belongs to postular-a-oferta. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.