Check if a job posting has already been applied to using its job ID, even when reached via a different link, to prevent duplicate submissions.
Whether this posting was already applied to.
Matched on the job id, so the same posting reached through a different tracking link is still recognised.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | ||
| job_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that matching is on job id, so the same posting via different tracking links is recognized – a useful detail. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any edge cases (e.g., behavior when job_id is omitted). It gives one nuance but lacks comprehensive transparency.
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 two short sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral note is concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 simple check tool with an output schema (per context), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the matching logic but omits details about return format, required vs optional parameters, and any preconditions. Since annotations are absent, more context would be expected, but the description covers the core functionality sufficiently for a straightforward tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions job id in a behavioral context without explaining the parameters. It does not clarify that job_url is required and job_id is optional, nor does it explain the role of each. The hint that matching is on job id is helpful, but it leaves the parameters largely undefined.
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: checking whether a posting was already applied to. It adds a behavioral nuance about matching on job id, which distinguishes it from URL-based matching. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling application_history, which might serve a similar role, so it doesn't fully separate itself from alternatives.
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 usage (check applied status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like application_history. It offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The mention of matching on job id hints at a use case, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.