Open a job listing in the browser, resolve aggregator links from LinkedIn, Seek, or Indeed to the real application URL, and keep it ready for form filling.
Open a job application page in the browser. Detects aggregator sites (LinkedIn/Seek/Indeed) and resolves to the real application URL. Keeps the browser open for subsequent form-filling tool calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The job listing or application URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses two nontrivial traits: the passed URL may be rewritten (aggregator resolution) and the browser session persists for later calls. However, it omits authentication preconditions (siblings include login_jobsite/check_login_status) and any error or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a stateful browser tool.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side-effect behavior, then workflow constraint. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, URL-rewriting behavior, and session persistence adequately. The main omissions are auth preconditions and failure handling, which matter given the surrounding login and browser-automation siblings.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Open a job application page in the browser') and adds distinguishing behavior (aggregator detection and URL resolution) that separates it from siblings like login_jobsite or click_element. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.
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?
'Keeps the browser open for subsequent form-filling tool calls' establishes sequencing context, signalling this is a prerequisite for fill_form_field/upload_resume/click_element. It gives clear workflow context but names no explicit exclusions or alternatives for opening pages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.