Fetch and filter job openings by application status (found, applied, interview, technical test, offer, rejected, withdrew) or by part of company name.
Lista vagas, opcionalmente filtrando por status (encontrada, aplicada, entrevista, teste_tecnico, oferta, recusada, desisti) ou por parte do nome da empresa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| empresa | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read operation, but the description does not state read-only safety, permissions, side effects, pagination, or any behavioral trait beyond the basic action.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently packs the purpose, filter options, and parameter values.
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?
Given the low complexity (a simple list with two optional filters), no annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description is largely complete. Minor gaps include default behavior when no filters are provided and result 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the possible status values (encontrada, aplicada, entrevista, teste_tecnico, oferta, recusada, desisti) and clarifies that 'empresa' matches part of the company name, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.
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 ('Lista') and resource ('vagas'), and names the optional filter criteria. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resumo_do_funil or vagas_paradas, but the purpose is clear.
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?
Describes optional filter conditions (status or partial company name), implying when to use those filters, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as resumo_do_funil or vagas_paradas. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.