gupy-candidate-mcp

monitorar

Track application deadlines for multiple job listings by providing vacancy IDs. Get deadline alerts to manage your job applications.

Instructions

Monitora os prazos de inscrição de uma lista de vagas.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vagas": "<vagas>"
    },
    "name": "monitorar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vagas`	Yes	Lista de IDs de vagas

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool monitors deadlines but does not clarify what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only operation, whether it triggers notifications, or any side effects. The term 'monitor' is ambiguous without additional context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action and object.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output/return behavior, potential errors, or when to prefer this tool over similar ones. For a simple boolean or monitoring tool, this might be tolerable, but the lack of any usage context prevents a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is 100% ('Lista de IDs de vagas'), and the description refers to 'uma lista de vagas', directly mapping to the vagas parameter. However, the description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, such as format requirements or edge cases, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Monitora os prazos de inscrição de uma lista de vagas' (monitors application deadlines for a list of vacancies). It uses a specific verb ('monitora') and a specific resource ('prazos de inscrição de uma lista de vagas'), making it distinct from sibling tools like buscar_vagas (search) or detalhe_vaga (detail).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools such as detalhe_vaga or analisar_aderencia, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server