Record a new job application with company, role, status, and dates in your job-hunt logbook. Track applied dates and next actions to keep your search organized.
Record a new job application. Dates use YYYY-MM-DD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| role | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | open | |
| company | Yes | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| date_applied | No | ||
| next_action_due | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 says this records a new application and specifies date formatting, but does not mention mutation effects, required fields, duplicate handling, default behavior, or validation beyond the date format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness contributes to under-specification elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is an 8-parameter creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not state which fields are required, what status values are valid, or how defaults behave, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It adds meaning only for date parameters by specifying YYYY-MM-DD, leaving company, role, status, url, notes, next_action, and next_action_due undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: "Record a new job application." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_applications or update_application, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_application or set_status. The implied usage is creating a new record, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or duplicate-handling guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.