Record a new job application by saving the company, role, platform, optional URL, notes, and applied date so your job tracker stays current.
Add a new job application to the tracker
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Link to the job posting | |
| role | Yes | Job title or role | |
| notes | No | Any extra notes | |
| company | Yes | Company name | |
| platform | Yes | Where you applied (e.g. LinkedIn, Upwork, Rozee) | |
| applied_date | No | Date you applied, YYYY-MM-DD (default today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether duplicate applications are rejected, whether any fields are defaulted server-side beyond what the schema states, or what the caller gets back 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured for a mutation tool with six parameters.
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 six-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover duplicate handling and expected outcome. It provides neither, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.
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 100%, and the schema documents all six fields including the applied_date default of today. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Add a new job application to the tracker'), which is clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings list_applications and followups_due. It does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_status or list_applications, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The implicit usage (creating a new record) is obvious from the verb, but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.