GetMattered

List Due Follow-ups

getmattered_list_due_follow_ups

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists job applications whose follow-up is due, ordered by urgency, with company, job, follow-up count and next due date. Read-only: it changes nothing and spends no credits.

Instructions

List the user's applications whose follow-up is due, most urgent first: each one's application_id, job, company, urgency, how many follow-ups were sent and the next due date. Read-only: it changes nothing, sends nothing and spends no credits. Do not use it to see the follow-ups already sent; use getmattered_list_sent_follow_ups. Next: getmattered_draft_follow_up for one of these applications.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draft`	Yes	From getmattered_draft_follow_up: the drafted message. Nothing was sent.
`action`	Yes	The operation that ran: list, history, draft, send or record_sent.
`history`	Yes	From getmattered_list_sent_follow_ups: follow-ups already sent, newest first.
`recorded`	Yes	From getmattered_send_follow_up or getmattered_record_follow_up: the follow-up count after it was recorded.
`followUps`	Yes	From getmattered_list_due_follow_ups: applications whose follow-up is due, most urgent first.
`nextCursor`	Yes	From getmattered_list_sent_follow_ups: pass as cursor for the next page. Null on the last page.
`notConfirmed`	Yes	True when the user declined the confirmation and nothing was sent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.10.2Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to prove basic safety. It still adds useful behavioral context by stating that it changes nothing, sends nothing, and spends no credits, and by specifying the most-urgent-first ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then gives safety context, then explicit exclusions and next steps. Each sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is listed, how it is ordered, what fields appear, that it is side-effect free, and which sibling to use for a different case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output fields and ordering rather than inventing parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: listing the user's applications whose follow-up is due. It adds scope and ordering (most urgent first) and names the fields returned, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools such as getmattered_list_sent_follow_ups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says not to use this tool for already-sent follow-ups and directs the agent to getmattered_list_sent_follow_ups instead. It also states the next step is getmattered_draft_follow_up for one of the listed applications, giving clear routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server