Update job filters in config.yaml by passing only the fields to change; a config.yaml.bak backup preserves the previous settings.
Change the job filters in config.yaml (only the fields you pass). Old file kept as config.yaml.bak.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_types | No | ||
| languages | No | ||
| locations | No | ||
| max_age_days | No | ||
| title_exclude | No | ||
| title_include | No | ||
| companies_exclude | No | ||
| companies_include | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: partial-update semantics (only passed fields change) and that the prior file is preserved as config.yaml.bak. However, it omits permissions required, whether relative or absolute path resolution, and whether filters affect already-recorded jobs.
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, zero padding, and the core action and file target are front-loaded. Every clause carries information, including the backup behavior in the second sentence.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this is too thin. Key details an agent needs — value formats, matching semantics for include/exclude lists, units for max_age_days, and the effect of changes — are absent from both the description and the schema.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains job_types, languages, locations, max_age_days, or the include/exclude list semantics. Nothing is added beyond the self-descriptive parameter names, and the numeric max_age_days unit and string-match rules are left undefined.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Change the job filters in config.yaml'. It is unambiguous about what is being modified, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings (which are mostly job/resume tools) or note relationships to diagnostic tools like doctor.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The parenthetical '(only the fields you pass)' describes merge behavior rather than usage context, so an agent gets no routing help from this sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.