Adzuna Jobs MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It explains result ordering ('ordered by job count'), data characteristics ('average_salary is ANNUAL in LOCAL CURRENCY'), typical output size ('Typically returns 10-20 top regions'), and comprehensive error handling. The Notes and Errors sections provide crucial operational context that annotations would normally cover.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, Args, Returns, Example, Notes, Errors) and front-loads the core functionality. While comprehensive, some sections like the detailed example response could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, but the overall length is justified given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage, all parameter semantics, return format with detailed example, behavioral notes, and error handling. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return structure, but it still provides a helpful example. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information for all parameters. It explains country codes with specific supported values, clarifies keywords usage ('Filter to specific roles'), details location behavior with concrete examples (empty vs 'London'), and explains category referencing ('Category tag from get_categories'). The Args section adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get salary and job count data') and resources ('broken down by geographic region'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_salary_histogram or search_jobs by focusing on geographic breakdowns rather than salary distributions or job searches. The PURPOSE section reinforces this with concrete use cases like 'Where are the highest paying X jobs?' and 'Which cities have the most opportunities?'

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool through the PURPOSE section and example questions, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools. It implies usage for geographic comparisons but doesn't contrast with tools like get_salary_histogram (which might show salary distributions without geographic breakdown) or search_jobs (which might return individual job listings).

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