Submits a LinkedIn job application by opening the job page, attaching your resume, and sending it only when the form is complete, with optional answers and confirmation.
Abre uma vaga, anexa o currículo e envia somente quando o formulário estiver completo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | No | ||
| job_url | Yes | ||
| confirmed | No | ||
| resume_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 mentions opening, attaching, and submitting only when complete, but it does not disclose what happens if the form is incomplete, how the 'answers' parameter is used, whether confirmation is required (despite the 'confirmed' parameter), or any authentication or rate-limit constraints. The behavior is under-specified.
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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It does not separate the core action from caveats, and it omits essential parameter context, making it under-specified rather than simply concise.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has four parameters with one required, and the workflow involves opening a job, attaching a resume, and submitting a form. The description does not explain the expected behavior when the form is incomplete, the role of the 'answers' and 'confirmed' parameters, or what the output represents. For an action with this complexity, the description is inadequate.
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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention job_url, resume_path, answers, or confirmed at all. The description provides no meaning for any parameter, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone, which is insufficient.
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 states a clear action: opens a job, attaches a resume, and submits when the form is complete. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as applying to a LinkedIn job. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'publish_linkedin_post', though the names make the distinction obvious.
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 the tool should be used when applying to a job and when the form is complete, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid job URL or resume path, or any conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.