Starts the JobApplication dashboard in the background when needed, opens it in your browser, and returns its address so you can manage job searches and applications.
Start the dashboard in the background (if needed) and open it in the browser. Returns its address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses a background server start, a browser-launch side effect, conditional execution ('if needed'), and the return value. It omits failure modes (port conflicts, browser launch failure) and whether the server persists, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, action first, return value last. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the side effects, and the return format ('its address'), which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps around lifecycle and error behavior keep it just under complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully described, so there is no parameter nuance the description could add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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 pair (start the dashboard, open it in the browser) plus the returned artifact ('its address'). No sibling tool overlaps with dashboard launching, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.
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 phrase '(if needed)' implies the call is safe to make when a dashboard may already be running, which is light usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, but with no sibling alternative for this capability there is little to disambiguate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.