Djinni MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_job_excluded

Exclude or restore a job ID/URL from search results only on explicit user request, such as when asked not to suggest it again. This prevents unwanted job suggestions without inferring application status.

Instructions

Exclude or restore an ID/URL ONLY on explicit user request, such as 'don't suggest this again'. Do not infer application/rejection status. Search omits excluded IDs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job": "<job>"
    },
    "name": "set_job_excluded"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job`	Yes
`reason`	No
`excluded`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draft`	No
`title`	No
`job_id`	Yes
`summary`	No
`excluded`	No
`profile_version`	No
`exclusion_reason`	No
`last_recommended_at`	No
`first_recommended_at`	No
`source_updated_label`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the change is reversible (exclude/restore), that excluded IDs are omitted from search results, and a warning not to conflate exclusion with application/rejection state. It omits whether the restored/excluded write is idempotent and what the response contains, but with an output schema present that is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the most important constraint (explicit user request only) front-loaded. The all-caps 'ONLY' and odd line breaking are slightly noisy but aid scanning rather than hindering it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, most of what an agent needs is present: trigger condition, reverse operation, and downstream effect on search. The unaddressed `reason` parameter and the absence of string length constraints are the remaining gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It partially does: 'ID/URL' characterises the `job` parameter and 'exclude or restore' characterises the `excluded` boolean. The `reason` parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three parameters semantically undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action pair (exclude / restore) against a specific resource (job ID/URL), which maps directly to the tool name. The mention that 'Search omits excluded IDs' indirectly distinguishes it from search_jobs, but the description never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('ONLY on explicit user request, such as "don't suggest this again"') plus an explicit prohibition ('Do not infer application/rejection status'), which tells the agent both when to call and when NOT to call. That is a rare, well-specified usage boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server