Retrieve Jobber team members available for assignment. Use pagination to browse the full roster and identify suitable staff for jobs.
List Jobber team members available for assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response's next_cursor, to fetch the next page | |
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the 'available for assignment' constraint, which clarifies returned records. It omits return format and pagination behavior, which is acceptable given the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. Every part contributes purpose: the verb, resource, and the scope qualifier are all essential. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a read-only, list, paginated data-tool with optional parameters, the description, annotations, and schema together provide enough context. It omits output format, but given the simple nature and existing annotations, this is not a major gap. A description might benefit from mentioning pagination explicitly, but it isn't critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning for cursor or page_size. The schema covers cursor but leaves page_size without any description. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate for the missing parameter semantics, but it does not.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Jobber team members available for assignment.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which mention team members. The qualification 'available for assignment' adds useful scope, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to get assignable team members) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling list does not contain an obvious competing tool, so misuse risk is low, but there is no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.