Retrieve a saved cover letter for a job application using its campaign and slug, so you can review or reuse it.
Read an existing saved cover letter for an application
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Application slug | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating lookup, but the description says nothing about behavior when no letter exists, auth/scoping needs, or output shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'existing saved' is mildly redundant but does not waste meaningful space.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never mentions the error case (no saved letter) or whether it returns the letter body verbatim.
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% with both `campaign` and `slug` documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level 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 (read), resource (cover letter), and scope (an existing saved one for an application), which separates it from the sibling `cover_letter` (generation) and other `read_*` tools. It is clear without naming a specific sibling alternative.
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?
'existing saved' implies the letter must already have been created, hinting that `cover_letter` is the tool that produces it. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite is stated, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.