Update a single field in a job application record, such as company, role, status, notes, or next action, by application ID to keep your job-hunt log current.
Update one field of an application (company, role, url, notes, next_action, next_action_due, status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| app_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — only a single field is mutated per invocation — but says nothing about validation failures, invalid field names, type coercion of 'value', or whether updates are reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with the mutable field set in parentheses; no filler, no redundancy. Everything present earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a three-required-param mutation tool with no annotations, the definition omits value formatting rules and the status/next_action overlap with set_status, leaving real ambiguity an agent must resolve by trial.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does real work by enumerating the legal values for 'field', which is otherwise an untyped string. However, 'app_id' and 'value' remain unexplained — notably the expected format for next_action_due (date string) and status (allowed values), which is the most likely source of bad calls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an application') and enumerates the seven mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what surface it touches. It does not differentiate from siblings, notably set_status, which appears to overlap with the 'status' field listed here.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus set_status (which also writes status) or add_application. The only implied rule is 'one field per call', and the agent must infer whether to loop this tool or pick a sibling for status changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.