Retrieve the pre-interview prep plan for a job application using its campaign and slug. Review your tailored interview preparation before the interview.
Read an existing pre-interview prep plan 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 safe non-mutating operation, but the description says nothing about what happens if no prep plan exists, whether it requires the campaign to match, or what the response contains.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no redundancy. It is efficient, though it leaves obvious questions (existence, return shape) unanswered rather than being maximally informative for its length.
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 tool is a simple two-parameter read with fully documented params and no output schema, so the description is roughly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should still say what the read yields or how it fails when no plan exists.
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% (both 'slug' and 'campaign' are documented with descriptions and examples), so the schema already does the parameter work. The description adds no format, scoping, or default-value detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.
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') and a specific resource ('pre-interview prep plan for an application'), which is far more informative than the sibling naming pattern alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with 'prepare' or 'read_cover_letter', but the resource noun makes the target unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus 'prepare' (which plausibly generates the plan) or the other read_* tools. The word 'existing' hints that it only works on a plan that already exists, but this constraint is never stated as a condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.