Fetch a single job application's metadata and job description by campaign and slug to review its details in one place.
Show a single application: metadata (meta.md) and job description (jd.md)
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose the return contents (metadata and job description files), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about errors, missing-file behavior, or output format.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the returned artifacts. No filler or 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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description names what is returned (meta.md and jd.md), which is the key missing information an agent would otherwise lack. Minor gaps around error/missing-application behavior remain.
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 both 'campaign' and 'slug' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (show) and resource (a single application), and even names the two artifacts returned (meta.md metadata, jd.md job description). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the list_applications sibling via 'single', though it does not name the alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'a single application' hints at the contrast with list_applications, but no alternative is named and no prerequisite is stated, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.