generate_outreachCreates a personalized outreach email draft for a specified contact and job, letting you review it before sending. No email is sent by this call.
Generates a personalized outreach-email draft for the specified contact and job. No email is sent by this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | Job ID | |
| contactId | Yes | Contact ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, and the description usefully clarifies that no email is sent. However, it does not explain what the destructive aspect actually is (e.g., overwriting an existing draft) or whether it requires the profile/resume to be populated.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety clarification immediately following. Nothing is wasted.
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?
Covers both required parameters and the key side-effect question (nothing is sent), and annotations carry the safety profile. The only minor gap is not stating whether the generated draft is returned in the response, which matters given there is no output schema.
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%, so both UUID parameters are already documented by the schema. The description only restates that a contact and job are required, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 (generates) and resource (personalized outreach-email draft) and scopes it to a contact and job. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_pack or reply_to_recruiter, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as reply_to_recruiter or generate_pack. The agent must infer when an outreach draft is appropriate versus a different generation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.