Lists job applications still marked "applied" after a set number of days, so you can identify which ones need a follow-up.
List applications still in "applied" status for more than N days, so you can follow up
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Minimum days since applying (default 7) |
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. 'List' signals a read-only operation and the filter semantics are disclosed, but nothing is said about result ordering, pagination, or what fields come back for a follow-up workflow.
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?
One sentence with zero filler and the filter criterion front-loaded. Minor deduction for the nested quoting of "applied" and the loose 'N days' phrasing, which reads slightly less cleanly than the schema's 'days'.
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 one-parameter, zero-required read tool this covers the essential semantics: the status filter, the threshold, and the intent. With no output schema, the return shape is left unspecified, which is the only real gap.
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 single 'days' parameter already documents its meaning and default of 7. The description's 'more than N days' matches the schema but adds no boundary or format detail beyond it, 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?
The description gives a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('applications'), and a precise filter predicate ('still in "applied" status for more than N days'). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the sibling list_applications, which is an unfiltered listing, 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?
The trailing clause 'so you can follow up' implies the intended scenario, but it never states when to prefer this over list_applications, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.