Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcpforwork

mcpforwork

by avivancos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_matches

Retrieve job matches ranked by score, using status and minimum score filters to narrow results.

Instructions

The scouted matches, best score first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_matches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
statusNo
min_scoreNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals ordering ('best score first') but says nothing about read-only semantics, default limit, status filtering behavior, pagination, or error handling. The behavior is under-specified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment rather than a structured sentence. It avoids fluff, but the brevity becomes under-specification, lacking essential information about parameters and usage. It is more minimal than effectively concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of status or min_score, nor how limit interacts with result size. The output schema may define return fields, but the description leaves too much ambiguity for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of limit, status, or min_score. The schema provides names and defaults, but the description adds no value in clarifying parameter semantics, and the valid values for status are completely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states that the tool returns scouted matches sorted by score ('best score first'). This clearly indicates a list operation and distinguishes it from siblings like get_match (single match) or approve_match/discard_match (actions). However, it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb, which slightly reduces clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use list_matches versus alternatives. The description does not mention intended use cases, filters, prerequisites, or exclusions. It offers no context for selecting this tool over other list operations like list_profiles.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools