Fetch office locations listed on a public job board for read-only use, so you can display or filter postings by office.
List offices on the public job board. Read-only.
For internal office management, use list_offices instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: 'Read-only.' However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the board must be published, or any rate/visibility constraints on public board data. The read-only disclosure is meaningful but the rest of the safety profile is unstated.
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 short sentences, zero filler. The purpose and scope come first, the disambiguation comes second — a well front-loaded structure for a trivially simple tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with no parameters the input side is fully covered. The description covers purpose, scope, safety hint, and sibling routing, leaving only minor unstated details such as whether results are paginated or require a published board.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; per the baseline this warrants a 4. The description correctly stays silent on inputs rather than inventing filtering semantics that do not exist.
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 and resource ('List offices') and scopes it precisely to 'the public job board', which immediately separates it from internal office endpoints. The named sibling list_offices reinforces the distinction, so an agent can route without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative ('use list_offices instead') and the condition that selects it ('For internal office management'), covering both when to use this tool and when not to. Nothing about the choice is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.