Retrieve tracked job applications from the local database to check statuses, dates, and platform breakdown for a selected period.
Retrieve tracked job applications from the local SQLite database, including application dates, platform breakdown, and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days of history to inspect (default 30). |
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. It mentions the data source ('local SQLite database') but doesn't specify permissions, read-only nature, or what happens if the database is empty. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the purpose and returns but lacks behavioral details like read-only status, error conditions, or interaction with other tools. Given no annotations and no output schema, more context would be helpful.
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 the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter 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 (Retrieve) and resource (tracked job applications) and lists the fields returned (application dates, platform breakdown, status). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_login_status or filter_jobs.
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 implies it's for inspecting the user's application history, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.