Save a job opening to your local SQLite job tracker by providing company and role, with optional link, platform, level, work model, and notes to organize your search.
Registra uma vaga encontrada. modelo: remoto | hibrido | presencial. plataforma: ex. Gupy, LinkedIn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | No | ||
| cargo | Yes | ||
| nivel | No | ||
| notas | No | ||
| modelo | No | ||
| empresa | Yes | ||
| plataforma | No |
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. It implies a write/create operation but says nothing about duplicate handling, required permissions, side effects, or what is returned on success.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and parameter hints following. The fragmentary style wastes no words, though it borders on under-specification.
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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions, this one-line description is not sufficient to call the tool confidently. The return value and duplicate behavior are unknown.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It usefully defines 'modelo' values (remoto|hibrido|presencial) and gives platform examples (Gupy, LinkedIn), but leaves cargo, empresa, nivel, link, and notas entirely undocumented.
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+resource ('Registra uma vaga'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like listar_vagas or atualizar_status. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 word 'encontrada' hints at the trigger (after finding a job posting), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as atualizar_status for existing entries, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.