mcpforwork

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

source_playbook

Search and apply to jobs from one source using a full playbook. Delivers packed data for review, with no database dependency.

Instructions

The full search + apply playbook for one source. Pack data only — no DB.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "source_playbook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`query`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

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. It discloses 'no DB' which implies no database persistence, but it doesn't explain what 'apply' does, whether it has side effects on external systems, or what 'pack data' entails. This leaves major behavioral ambiguities.

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 very brief with no redundant words, but the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than an action-oriented clause, and the term 'playbook' is ambiguous. It would be clearer as an imperative sentence.

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?

The description provides a high-level purpose and one constraint, but it omits parameter semantics and usage context. Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered, but an agent still lacks enough information to know exactly what inputs and side effects to expect, especially with many sibling tools.

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% and the description doesn't mention the 'slug' or 'query' parameters. The phrase 'one source' hints at the slug, but 'query' is completely unexplained, and its default value offers no clue. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 identifies the tool as 'the full search + apply playbook for one source' and adds the 'Pack data only — no DB' qualifier, which clarifies its non-persistent nature. It uses a specific resource ('one source') and distinguishes it conceptually from sibling tools like 'hunt_plan' or 'list_sources', though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or use cases. Sibling tools are not referenced, and 'playbook' is left undefined.

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