Add a job to the application tracker or retrieve the existing entry. Deduplicates on company, normalised role, and canonical URL while preserving history.
Add a job to the application tracker, or return the existing entry. Deduplicates on company + normalised role + canonical URL, so the same posting seen on two boards is one row. Never overwrites history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | ||
| score | No | ||
| decision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: dedup key (company + normalised role + canonical URL), idempotency, and the promise never to overwrite history. It omits write/auth implications and what happens to the score/decision values when an existing entry is returned instead of created.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the core upsert behavior and dedup rule front-loaded. No filler, though the dedup clause is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('normalised role', 'canonical URL') without definition.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a fully undocumented nested 'job' object at 0% coverage, the description covers the key idempotency/integrity behavior but leaves the return shape, auth needs, and score/decision semantics unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it helpfully names the fields used for deduplication (company, role, canonical URL), which are inside the otherwise opaque nested 'job' object. It says nothing about the 'score' or 'decision' parameters, leaving their semantics entirely to 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource (add a job to the application tracker / return the existing entry) and clarifies the scope through its idempotent upsert semantics. It does not explicitly name a sibling like update_application_status or show_pipeline, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied: the idempotent 'or return the existing entry' behavior tells the agent it need not pre-check for duplicates. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, and no mention of update_application_status for changing status on an existing row.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.