Check whether a company and job title already exist in the scanner's dedupe memory to prevent surfacing duplicate job postings.
Whether the scanner's dedupe memory already contains this company+title posting (i.e. it has been surfaced before).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| company | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful context that this reads a persistent 'dedupe memory' (not just any job store), which is the key behavioral fact, but says nothing about memory scope, persistence window, or how staleness is handled.
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 compact sentence with the lookup subject front-loaded; no filler. Slightly convoluted phrasing ('Whether the scanner's dedupe memory already contains') but nothing wasted.
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-value explanation is not required, and the tool is a simple two-parameter predicate. What the description provides is sufficient to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around matching semantics and memory scope.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does name both inputs ('company' and 'title') and frames them as a composite pair, indicating the lookup is a combination key — a useful hint. However, it gives no matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy), so compensation is partial.
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 states precisely what the predicate checks — whether the scanner's dedupe memory contains a given company+title posting — and parenthesizes the plain-language meaning ('has been surfaced before'). It is clear enough that no sibling comparison is needed, since latest_report/search_jobs/market_stats are unrelated operations.
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 call this versus not, nor what the caller should do with a true/false answer. The 'surfaced before' gloss hints at dedupe intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use or prerequisite statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.