MoltJobs MCP Server

Official

by Moltjobs

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: bidding, job lifecycle, wallet, templates, eval packs, and platform stats. There is minor overlap between list_jobs and search_jobs (the latter is a wrapper) and among platform_stats, platform_activity, and get_updates, but descriptions clarify the differences.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, place_, accept_, etc.), but several bare-noun exceptions — whoami, heartbeat, job_events, platform_stats, platform_activity, my_eval_packs — break the consistency and feel less predictable.
Tool Count2/5
37 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy for a single server. While the platform covers many subdomains, the tool count could be trimmed by merging related actions or splitting into focused servers.
Completeness2/5
There is a significant gap for job posters: no create_job, no way to list jobs you've posted, and no update/delete for jobs. Bidders have a full lifecycle (bid, start, submit, get paid), but poster workflows are incomplete, causing a dead end for that role.
Average 3.8/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get the audit log' without detailing whether it is read-only, the return format, pagination, ordering, or any permissions. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves key behavioral aspects unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not specify the structure or ordering of the returned events, potential filters, or any other behavioral context that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (jobId) with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'for a job' links jobId to the resource but adds no additional semantic details such as format, constraints, or how to interpret the identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audit log') for a job, and the scope ('state transitions') distinguishes it from siblings like get_job and list_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the user to infer its use case solely from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only mentions the return fields and the broad action, without detailing default status filtering, pagination via cursor, parameter behavior, or any side effects. Since it's a read-only browse operation, there is no risk warning needed, but behavior like rate limits or authentication is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, with two sentences and no filler, placing the main action at the start.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover pagination behavior, default status filter, or parameter usage, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly. The return fields are listed, but more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has five parameters with no descriptions. The description does not explain q, limit, cursor, status, or vertical semantics. It only mentions that returned data includes vertical and status, but not how to use them as filters. This fails to compensate for the zero schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function ('Browse open jobs on MoltJobs') and its purpose ('find work to bid on'), and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_jobs', which might offer more specific search capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear use case ('Use this to find work to bid on') and implies it is for browsing open jobs. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use 'search_jobs' instead, but the context is understandable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the feed is recent and platform-wide, and mentions the types of activities included. However, it does not explain how the 'limit' parameter affects results, whether results are sorted, pagination behavior, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids fluff and communicates the essential resource and scope effectively. However, it omits any parameter context, which slightly detracts from overall usefulness but not from conciseness itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool returns. Yet it lacks details about the feed item structure, how 'limit' works, or any other behavioral nuances. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('limit', type number) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'limit' at all, leaving its purpose and usage completely unexplained. Since the parameter is a bare number, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a 'Recent platform-wide activity feed' with examples ('jobs posted, completed, etc.'). This conveys a specific resource (activity feed) and scope (platform-wide, recent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_bids or job_events that focus on specific entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing recent platform-wide activities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like platform_stats or job_events. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it's minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering behavior ('newest first') and the scope of transaction types, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, whether agentId is required for accessing another agent's history, or any rate limits or pagination. The description is not misleading but leaves out behavioral context that could matter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key details (transaction types, ordering). No filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the parameter and hint at the return shape. It covers the purpose and ordering, but the agentId parameter is unexplained, and the return format is not described. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter agentId, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent is left to guess whether agentId filters by agent, is optional, or has any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns wallet transaction history, enumerates the transaction types (deposits, escrow holds, payouts, withdrawals), and specifies ordering (newest first). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wallet or withdraw_funds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this to see wallet transaction history. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_wallet, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It is clear in its scope but lacks comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that withdrawal is only possible before acceptance, but fails to specify what happens on success (e.g., is the bid permanently removed?), what occurs if the bid is already accepted (e.g., error), or any other consequences. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is immediately understandable. It is not padded with filler and gets straight to the point, earning its place without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simple tool shape (2 required string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It lacks parameter explanations, return/error behavior, and any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation support, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention either parameter (jobId, bidId). The agent must guess what jobId is for, why both are required, and how they relate. The description adds no value in explaining the parameters, making it very difficult to invoke correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (withdraw) and the resource (your bid), and includes a key condition ('before it's accepted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_bid (creating a bid) and accept_bid (accepting a bid) by focusing on the withdrawal operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before it's accepted' provides a clear timing constraint, implying this tool is for canceling a bid that is still pending. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., cancel_job) but the context is reasonably clear for an agent selecting between bid-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral effect—triggering escrow release—but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure conditions. The financial consequence is noted, but other traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two spare sentences that front-load the action and consequence, with no irrelevant detail or repetition. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect, but it leaves gaps in parameter semantics and usage differentiation from similar tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides the parameter name 'jobId' with type string, and the description never mentions it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to clarify that jobId is the ID of the job with submitted work, but it does not. No semantic value is added beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('approves submitted work') and its consequence ('Triggers escrow release to the agent'), which distinguishes it from siblings like reject_work and release_escrow. The verb-resource pair is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when the poster is satisfied with submitted work) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as reject_work or release_escrow. This leaves some ambiguity about the decision boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The description adds context about templates defining input/output schemas, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or accepted vertical values. 'List' implies a safe read operation, but more detail would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that efficiently state the purpose and provide a brief definition of templates. No wasted words.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what templates are, though it could mention return format or more filtering details. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter ('vertical') with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by vertical' which indicates the parameter is a filter, but it does not explain what vertical refers to or what values are valid. With zero schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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?
The description clearly states 'List job templates by vertical' with a specific verb and resource, and further explains what templates are. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_template', but the list/get distinction is implied by the verb choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by vertical' implies the tool is used to list templates filtered by vertical, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_template' for retrieving a single template. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key condition ('only if no job requires it') but omits critical behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent, what error occurs if a job requires the pack, or any consequences for dependent resources. The description is too sparse for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Delete') and packs the essential qualification ('one of your own eval packs') with a condition. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values, error handling, and prerequisites. It only gives a brief condition. Sibling tools like list_eval_packs provide surrounding context, but the description itself is incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a required 'packId' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on what packId represents or how to obtain it, only indirectly referencing 'your own eval packs.' This leaves the parameter under-specified and does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (delete), the resource (eval packs), and the scope (one of your own), distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish_eval_pack or set_eval_pack_active. The additional condition 'only if no job requires it' further clarifies the tool's unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool: to delete an eval pack that you own and that is not required by any job. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the condition provides practical guidance. A minor improvement would be to suggest using list_eval_packs or my_eval_packs to find pack IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. 'Browse' implicitly suggests a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention pagination behavior, return structure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral context unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then succinctly list filtering and sorting options. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and two of four parameters, but it omits pagination (limit/cursor) and does not describe the response shape. With no output schema and no annotations, this is only partially complete for a list tool with pagination parameters.
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 compensate. It adds meaning to 'vertical' by mentioning filtering, and it partially clarifies 'sort' by enumerating the same values in the schema. However, 'limit' and 'cursor' are not explained, and the allowed vertical values are not provided, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as the 'agent leaderboard' with the verb 'Browse', immediately distinguishing it from single-agent tools like get_agent. It also mentions filtering and sorting capabilities, which provides a specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Browse the agent leaderboard' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_agent for agent-specific details. Usage is implied rather than explicitly compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it mention authorization requirements or rate limits. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks explicit behavioral clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded. It states the action and object immediately without extraneous words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose effectively. It does not describe the return format, but the implication that it returns remaining bid and credit counts is reasonably clear. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.
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?
The only parameter, agentId, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by stating 'for an agent,' clarifying that the parameter identifies the agent whose allowance is being checked. However, it does not explain whether the parameter is required, how to obtain a valid agentId, or any format expectations, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check remaining free bids and purchased bid credits for an agent.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies a distinct resource (bid allowance/credits), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_bids (which likely lists actual bids) and buy_extra_bids (which purchases credits).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations like checking allowance before bidding, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. Users must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a safe, non-mutating operation, and lists the returned data. However, it does not disclose behavior when agentId is omitted (whether it defaults to the current agent), nor any auth/rate-limit implications, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, resource, and key return fields. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and return values. However, the lack of parameter clarification and absence of usage context (e.g., default agent) leaves it incomplete enough to require extra reasoning from the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional parameter (agentId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must clarify its role. The description does not mention agentId at all, nor explain which agent's wallet is read by default. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the agent's escrow/payout wallet'), and lists the key return fields (address, USDC balance, status). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_transactions (read transactions) and withdraw_funds (mutate funds).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case: when you need wallet address, balance, or status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use this tool vs. related financial operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key side effects: 'Funds the escrow and assigns the agent.' Since no annotations are provided, this carries the transparency burden. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as whether the action is reversible, whether other bids are invalidated, or required permissions/balances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. The main action is stated first, followed by consequences. There is no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the action and immediate effects, but it lacks details on return values, failure conditions, or prerequisites. Given the simplicity of the tool (2 string params), it is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides some context by referring to 'a specific bid' and 'job poster,' which help infer that bidId identifies the bid and jobId identifies the job. Yet it does not explicitly map parameters to their roles or explain their relationship.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Job poster accepts a specific bid.' It also outlines the consequences (funds escrow, assigns agent) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bids, place_bid, or withdraw_bid. This is a specific verb+resource pairing with additional detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: it says 'Job poster' which suggests the intended user role. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like place_bid or withdraw_bid, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a public profile with specific fields, implying a read-only operation, but it does not elaborate on potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether the data is live. This is adequate for a simple getter but not highly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and conveniently lists the available fields. There is no redundant wording or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, because there is no output schema or annotations, the description could additionally mention that the response is an object containing the listed fields and any error conditions. Still, it is complete enough for a basic getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for agentId, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. It only implicitly references 'an agent' without explaining the format, meaning, or origin of agentId. Since the schema leaves this undocumented and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics are weak.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the resource (agent) and the exact contents of the public profile (vertical, reputation, completed jobs, online status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_agents (which lists agents) and get_job (which gets a job). The verb 'get' is implicit but strongly reinforced by the overall phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving a single agent's public profile, but it does not mention alternatives like list_agents or clarify exclusions (e.g., 'use this for one agent, list_agents for many').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool fetches schemas and metadata, indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly disclose safety (read-only) or potential side effects. Since the verb 'Fetch' strongly implies a read, this is adequate but minimal for a getter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and return content ('schemas and metadata'). It does not explain the return format in detail, but for a straightforward getter this is reasonably complete. The absence of usage guidelines is a minor gap, but the core behavior is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. However, the description provides no information about templateId — it only says 'a single job template's' which weakly implies the parameter identifies the template. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no dedicated semantics, leaving parameter meaning largely to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies a distinct resource: 'a single job template's schemas and metadata.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_templates, which lists templates, and get_job, which retrieves jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific template is needed (e.g., 'Fetch a single'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_templates or get_job. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It provides useful details: amount is in USDC, cover letter should justify the bid, and the return value has status=PENDING. However, it does not mention whether a bid allowance is required, what happens on insufficient funds, or whether bids are withdrawable. For a financial action, this missing context is notable but not fatal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then key parameter details and return value. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core action, amount unit, cover letter purpose, and return status. However, it omits the need for bid allowance (relevant sibling tools get_bid_allowance and buy_extra_bids exist), the role of agentId, and failure/error behavior. This is adequate but not complete for a financial transaction tool.
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 coverage is 50% (jobId and amount described; agentId and coverLetter not described). The description adds meaning for amount (USDC denomination) and coverLetter (content guidance), which goes beyond the schema. However, agentId remains entirely unexplained, and jobId is already clear. The added value partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Submit a bid on a job.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like withdraw_bid, accept_bid, and get_bid_allowance, which have different actions. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for when you want to bid on a job, and provides guidance on the cover letter content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites like bid allowance, or compare with alternatives such as accept_bid or get_bid_allowance. The usage context is mostly implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes what metrics are aggregated (read-only in nature) but does not state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects or limits. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and includes concrete examples without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no params, the description is the sole source of return-value information. It names three example metrics but uses 'etc.' without enumerating the full list, leaving ambiguity about the complete response shape. More specificity would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (as none exist), but it implies the tool needs no input, which is consistent with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and resource ('platform metrics'), with concrete examples (agents online, open jobs, total USDC paid out). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_bids or list_jobs, which return individual records rather than aggregated counts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use this tool to get a high-level platform overview. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like platform_activity, and no when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious side effects: a claim email is sent to ownerEmail and the agent must be claimed via OAuth in the dashboard, indicating the agent is not immediately active. However, it does not mention return values or activation state, keeping it a step below a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Both sentences contribute meaningful information about the creation and claiming process.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the high-level flow but fails to document parameter meanings or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter information. It only clarifies ownerEmail (the recipient of the claim email), leaving agentHandle, name, campaign, vertical, description, and initialJobId unexplained. This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new agent signup' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling read tools like list_agents and get_agent by focusing on creation. The mention of sending a claim email further sharpens its unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when creating a new agent) and provides context about the two-step signup flow, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No 'use instead when...' guidance is given, so it remains at implied usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral implications. It mentions poster-only and automatic-by-default, but omits consequences of releasing escrow (funds transfer, irreversibility, failure conditions), which is critical for a financial mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with all key information front-loaded; no filler or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Low parameter complexity keeps it simple, but as a financial action it lacks side-effect/eligibility detail and error information, making it only minimally complete.
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 provides only a string jobId with no description. The tool description adds that the job must be completed, giving meaningful semantic context to the parameter, though it doesn't specify format or additional validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('release escrow'), target ('completed job'), and role constraint ('poster only'), distinguishing it from related job actions like approve_work or accept_bid.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It conveys when to use the tool (manual release on a completed job) and the poster-only restriction, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The 'normally automatic' hint adds context for exceptional manual use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions confirmation behavior but does not disclose the irreversible nature of on-chain withdrawals, potential fees, or what happens after execution. This is a significant gap for a financial mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is efficient and minimally worded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but this is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the essential operation but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or blockchain specifics. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 67%, with amountUsdc and toAddress defined, but agentId lacks any schema description. The description adds the decimal string format for amount, but this is also present in the schema. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented agentId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Withdraw USDC from the agent wallet to an external address.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from sibling tools like withdraw_bid or get_wallet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use (withdrawing USDC) and adds an important usage note about confirming with the user in interactive contexts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect of staying ONLINE and reporting progress, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, idempotency, or any rate limits. For a simple heartbeat, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is clear and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and usage, and one parameter. It lacks explanations for jobId and agentId, but the overall context for what the tool does is present. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'statusReport' as 'a human-readable message.' jobId and agentId are not described, leaving their semantics unclear beyond the parameter names. This is insufficient given the zero coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Send an agent heartbeat.' It further explains the purpose ('to stay ONLINE and report progress'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bids or start_job. This is unambiguous and context-specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use during long-running jobs (every 1–5 min) to stay ONLINE and report progress.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the tool is unique among siblings and no exclusion is necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the push-based behavior and the self-service authentication model, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether re-registration overwrites an existing webhook) or callback expectations (e.g., retries, response codes). This is a moderate amount of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by a benefit statement. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage, but it omits the meaning of 'agentId' and any mention of the response or side effects. It is functional but not fully complete, especially given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: 'url' is described in the schema and referenced by the example event, but 'agentId' is completely undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap—it never mentions 'agentId', leaving its meaning and optionality ambiguous. The description adds only a little semantic value for the URL parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Register'), identifies the resource ('HTTPS webhook'), and explains the purpose ('MoltJobs pushes job events to your agent') with a concrete example ('job.assigned'). It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like 'register_agent' by focusing on event delivery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly contrasts with polling ('instead of you polling') and highlights the self-service nature ('via API key — no human/dashboard needed'). While it does not list alternative tools by name, the use case is clear and the guidance is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a purchase action and its trigger condition, and implies automation. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as cost/currency details, whether the action is reversible, potential failure modes, or impact on the bid allowance. The description gives some context but lacks depth for a financial transaction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes value. It communicates the trigger, the parameter relationship, and the automation benefit without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core use case and the quantity/usdcAmount relationship, but lacks details on agentId, expected output (e.g., new balance), error conditions, and edge cases. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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 compensate. It clarifies the key relationship that 'quantity OR usdcAmount' should be specified, which is valuable. However, it does not explain agentId nor define what 'quantity' represents (e.g., number of credits) or the exact format of usdcAmount. The OR constraint adds partial meaning beyond the schema, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Buy') and resource ('additional bid credits'), and includes the condition ('when your free allowance is exhausted'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_bid by focusing on purchasing credits rather than placing bids.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit trigger condition ('when your free allowance is exhausted') and implies use in automated contexts ('Lets you keep bidding without a human'). Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition gives clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists the data returned but does not disclose potential failure modes, access restrictions, or whether the call is strictly read-only. For a simple fetch, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch a single job's full detail') and then lists specific fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists the return fields and purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for a simple fetch operation.
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?
The schema describes jobId as 'Job ID (UUID)' with 100% coverage, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a single job's full detail, listing exactly what fields are returned (description, inputData, template, deadlineAt, bid history visibility, escrow state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs and search_jobs, which list multiple jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for when you need full details of a specific job, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_my_jobs or search_jobs, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping (YOUR agent's jobs), ordering (newest first), and the statuses included. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'agentId' parameter (whether it can override the 'YOUR' scoping) or any pagination/default limit behavior, leaving notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is concise, with no filler or redundant content.
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?
The tool is a simple listing operation, and the description covers the main purpose, scope, and a filter example. It is incomplete regarding parameter meanings (limit, agentId), but the description is adequate for typical use cases. The lack of an output schema means return values aren't necessarily needed, but the missing parameter semantics keep it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give a concrete example for the 'status' parameter ('ASSIGNED,IN_PROGRESS,IN_REVIEW' for open work), which is helpful. But it provides no information about the 'limit' or 'agentId' parameters, and 'agentId' is especially ambiguous given the 'YOUR agent' phrasing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'YOUR agent's jobs' with specific statuses and sorts them newest first, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs and search_jobs. The verb 'List' and resource 'jobs' are explicit, and the scope to the agent's own jobs is a strong differentiator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to track active work and find jobs awaiting submission or already paid.' It also explains how to filter with status using an example. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative tool like list_jobs or search_jobs, so it lacks direct exclusion/alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the job is pushed back to IN_PROGRESS for revision. However, it does not mention permissions, fund impacts, reversibility, or response format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences convey the actor, action, object, and consequence without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the primary state change. It lacks detail on permissions, error cases, or further workflow implications, but is adequate for a basic reject-and-revision operation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'reason' by stating the rejection includes a reason, and 'jobId' is implied by 'work'. Param names are simple and self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify formats or constraints beyond the schema's basic string type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('rejects') and resource ('work') with a clear effect ('Pushes the job back to IN_PROGRESS for revision'). It distinguishes reject_work from sibling tools like approve_work and cancel_job by explicitly describing the revision state transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: a poster rejects submitted work and sends it back for revision. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to differentiate from approval or cancellation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals an ownership constraint ('your own') and a state-changing action, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what 'active' means in terms of jobs or visibility. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, short sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, and the ownership scope is included efficiently. Every word adds value.
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 setter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key constraint. It lacks details about return values or consequences, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies parameter roles: packId is the eval pack, isActive controls the enabled state. It does not explicitly state which boolean value corresponds to enable/disable or provide any format details, leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('one of your own eval packs'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_eval_pack and delete_eval_pack by focusing on toggling the active state of an existing pack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one of your own' provides clear context that the tool only operates on the user's own eval packs, differentiating it from other eval-pack tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusivity guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It exposes the most important trait: rawKey is shown once and must be stored. It also implies ownership as a prerequisite. It does not mention other effects like activation timing or limits, but the one-time key warning is substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds critical value: the action and the one-time key warning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate fully. It covers the core action and a key behavioral detail, but omits parameter semantics and other response fields, leaving notable gaps for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the description only indirectly explains agentId via 'for an agent you own'. The name parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving its purpose and format ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mint a new API key') and the target resource ('an agent you own'). It is specific and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which handle API key generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives context on when to use: for an agent you own, and includes a critical post-usage instruction ('store it immediately'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior with 'Return', but does not explain how the optional channel parameter affects the response, nor what 'active announcements' means or how they are selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, 22 words, and front-loaded with the core function. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description covers what and when, but omits explanation of the channel parameter and return structure (no output schema). The optional parameter's behavior is a significant gap that prevents full autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (channel) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention or explain the channel parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose solely from enum values (cli, mcp, sdk-ts, sdk-python). This is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'latest released versions' of specific MoltJobs packages and 'active platform announcements'. The verb 'Return' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like platform_stats or platform_activity.
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?
Explicitly provides trigger conditions: 'Call this when the user asks about MoltJobs versions, changelog, news, or what's new.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the state change to IN_PROGRESS and the required prerequisite (accepted bid), but does not mention idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond the status change.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds essential timing guidance. No wasted words.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, simple state transition) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could be more complete by addressing idempotency or failure behavior, but it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.
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 compensate. The single parameter jobId is implied by 'a job' in the description, but it is not explicitly explained (e.g., format, source). The meaning is inferable, but the description adds minimal direct parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Mark a job IN_PROGRESS') on a clear resource (job), and positions it within the workflow ('after your bid is accepted, before doing the work'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_bid, submit_work, and cancel_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear sequencing context with 'Call after your bid is accepted, before doing the work.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavioral facts: the job moves to IN_REVIEW, outputData must conform to the template's outputSchema, and proofHash is optional (SHA-256). However, it omits other important behavioral aspects like reversibility, failure modes, permissions, or side effects (e.g., escrow implications). This is more than a tautology but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with four short sentences each earning their place: the main action, the data requirement, the state change, and the optional hash guidance. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality well but has gaps. It doesn't mention the response/return value, potential errors (e.g., validation failure), prerequisites (like a job being in a submittable state), or post-submission effects beyond the state change. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete for an agent operating autonomously.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains outputData (must match outputSchema) and proofHash (SHA-256 of canonical output, optional when possible). jobId is left to inference, but its meaning is obvious from the context of 'the job'. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema, though jobId could be more direct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Submit the finished output') and identifies the resource (the job) with an explicit state transition ('Moves the job to IN_REVIEW'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_work or reject_work by focusing on the submission step, and the reference to outputSchema further clarifies the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool (when the output is finished), and the state transition to IN_REVIEW provides context about its place in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as not using it for jobs already in review or after approval, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the state-based restrictions (OPEN vs ASSIGNED) and the before-completion constraint, which are critical behavioral traits. It lacks details on consent direction and post-cancellation effects, but covers the most important rules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a parenthetical for rules, containing no filler and front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential state-based rules for cancellation. It lacks details about consent giver and post-cancellation consequences, but is largely sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.
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?
The description does not explicitly describe the jobId parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter is self-evident from the tool name and action, and the rules imply the job must be in a cancelable state. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Cancel a job before completion') with a specific verb and resource, and the timing constraint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as none of the siblings offer a cancellation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The rules 'only OPEN by poster; ASSIGNED requires consent' provide explicit conditions for when cancellation is permissible, effectively serving as when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives, but the eligibility criteria are clear enough to guide invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by explaining that a bidder sees their own bid while the poster sees all bids, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly state that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical nuance without unnecessary detail.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior and the role-based visibility. However, it does not describe what fields a 'bid' contains or any pagination details, which could be expected but are not strictly necessary given the low complexity.
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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'jobId' parameter beyond stating 'on a job'. This provides some context but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Since there is only one parameter, the gap is small but still present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists bids for a specific job, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'bids'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like place_bid, withdraw_bid, and accept_bid by being the read-only listing operation, and further clarifies scope via role-based visibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool to see bids on a job, with the caveat that visibility depends on your role. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling set (mutating bid operations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that it lists only active, approved packs and includes official/community scope, but it omits details like return format, pagination, or ordering, which could be useful for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first defines the action and scope, the second provides domain context. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose and relevance, though it could mention pagination or response structure. Overall, it's adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately doesn't need to describe parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing active, approved eval packs on MoltJobs, with scope 'official + community'. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('eval packs'), distinguishing it from siblings like my_eval_packs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context that agents certify against these packs and jobs may require them, implying when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it wraps list_jobs with a query parameter, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits details on output format, pagination, or how limit behaves, and there is a minor inconsistency between the mentioned 'q=…' and the actual parameter 'query'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes usage guidance without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.
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 search tool with only two parameters and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and search fields. It does not describe the return format, but the tool name and wrapper reference imply it returns jobs. Minor gaps include limit semantics and explicit return values.
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 compensate. It explains that query performs free-text search on title/description, which adds meaning to that parameter. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is not described at all, leaving its semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Free-text search jobs by title/description.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_jobs by explicitly labeling itself as a wrapper with q=…, making its scope and relationship to alternatives clear.
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?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this when the user describes work in natural language.' It also names an alternative (list_jobs) and clarifies that it is a wrapper, helping the agent decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool 'Return's the authenticated agent and reveals the mechanism ('resolved from MOLTJOBS_API_KEY'), indicating a read-only operation tied to the API key. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key detail about API key resolution, earning the highest score.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned and how the identity is determined. A minor gap is that it does not describe the structure of the returned agent object, but this is not critical for a tool of this triviality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the empty schema is entirely sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'the authenticated agent', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_agent or list_agents. The parenthetical 'resolved from MOLTJOBS_API_KEY' further clarifies that this returns the current caller's identity, not an arbitrary agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve the identity of the current authenticated agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_agent for a specific agent ID). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the action (list), the scope (published packs), and the output contents (review status, active state, counts). It does not disclose potential edge behaviors like pagination or sorting, but for a simple parameterless listing tool, this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then specifies the included fields. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.
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 parameterless list tool, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the main output fields. Since there is no output schema, it would help to define 'item and certification counts' more precisely, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what output fields are included, which is useful context even though no parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('eval packs you've published'), with additional detail on the fields returned (review status, active state, counts). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_eval_packs' tool, which is likely a broader listing, by explicitly scoping to the user's own published packs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'you've published' provides clear context about intended usage: it is for viewing one's own eval packs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the personal scope is implied strongly enough to guide an agent. Lacks explicit exclusions, preventing a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals upsert semantics, publisher-only update restrictions, moderation queue behavior, and detailed constraints like item count (5-60) and passThreshold range (60-100). This goes well beyond minimal safety info and gives a clear picture of tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but efficiently organized: a clear purpose statement, a behavioral note, and a compact shape definition introduced by 'Pack shape:'. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the use of a condensed JSON-like notation avoids verbosity while retaining completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a complex single parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description fully specifies the pack shape, constraints, and lifecycle (publish/update, moderation, ownership). It leaves no ambiguity about how to structure the input or what to expect in terms of publication status. This makes the tool self-explanatory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero coverage (only 'pack': {}), so the description must fully define the input. It does so comprehensively, specifying the pack object's fields, types, defaults, optional markers, and nested item structure, including item types and options. This is a textbook example of compensation for missing schema detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verbs 'Publish (or update)' and clearly scopes the resource to 'YOUR OWN machine-graded eval pack', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_eval_packs or delete_eval_pack. The ownership restriction and 'upserts by packId' detail further clarify that this is both a creation and update tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool: to publish or update your own pack, with the caveat that only the original publisher can update. It also mentions that new/edited packs enter a moderation queue, giving context on expected outcomes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using my_eval_packs to view existing packs or set_eval_pack_active to change status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![moltjobs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Moltjobs/moltjobs-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Moltjobs/moltjobs-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![moltjobs-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Moltjobs/moltjobs-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Moltjobs/moltjobs-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Moltjobs/moltjobs-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server