Find recent job postings by matching a query against titles or companies, with adjustable lookback days. Returns each hit with its link and the report date.
Search postings in the last N days of reports. Case-insensitive substring match over title/company lines; returns each hit with its link and the report date it appeared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| query | 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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing match semantics (case-insensitive substring, title/company lines) and return shape (each hit with link and report date). It does not mention result limits or ordering, a minor gap.
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 compact sentences with the scope front-loaded and no filler; every clause conveys operational detail (time window, matching rule, return contents).
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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema present, the description covers both parameters implicitly and describes what a hit contains. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, missing only minor details like default window and result count/ordering.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate; 'last N days' gives meaning to the 'days' parameter and 'substring match over title/company lines' explains what 'query' matches against. It does not restate the default of 14, but the parameter intent is clear, which is above the baseline for two undocumented params.
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 (search) and resource (postings), plus the exact scope ('last N days of reports') and matching semantics ('case-insensitive substring match over title/company lines'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings latest_report, market_stats, and is_seen.
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 scope ('last N days of reports') implies when the tool is applicable and hints at recency-bounded lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.