Lists your Work at a Startup applications with dates, roles, responses, weekly quota, and founder-initiated messages plus reply status, so you can track progress and follow-ups.
Lista las empresas a las que te postulaste en Work at a Startup, con fecha, ofertas, respuestas recibidas y el cupo semanal, y los fundadores que te escribieron primero (y si les respondiste).
| 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; 'Lista' plus the enumerated fields make clear this is a read-only, user-scoped retrieval of application data. It does not disclose authentication requirements, ordering, pagination/limits, or what happens when the user has no applications, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the returned content; every clause adds substance rather than restating the name. Slightly dense with parentheticals ('y si les respondiste'), but nothing is wasted.
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 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields effectively substitutes for an output schema and tells the agent exactly what it will get. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly (it takes no arguments) 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a single, argument-free call covering the whole application history.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lista') and a clearly bounded resource ('las empresas a las que te postulaste en Work at a Startup'), then enumerates what the listing contains (fecha, ofertas, respuestas, cupo semanal, fundadores que escribieron primero). This is inherently distinguishable from sibling read tools like buscar-ofertas (search available offers) or detalle-de-empresa (single company), since the scope is the user's own application history.
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 purpose implies usage (review your application status and inbound founder outreach), but the description never says when to pick this over buscar-ofertas or detalle-de-oferta, nor states preconditions such as being logged in. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.