Browse JobSmith rule pack counts grouped by category and severity, with optional category filtering, to review available rules.
Browse JobSmith's rule pack (counts by category and severity), optionally filtered by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter to one category (e.g. ATS, TRUTH, VOICE, PRIVACY) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (counts by category and severity), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, auth requirements, or limits. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the return shape, and the optional filter with zero wasted words.
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 one-optional-parameter browsing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, and the filter. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on what the counts represent or how the rule pack relates to jobsmith_check would help.
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% and the schema already names the single optional category parameter with examples (ATS, TRUTH, VOICE, PRIVACY). The description only restates that filtering is optional, adding no syntax or matching semantics beyond 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?
States a specific verb (Browse) and resource (JobSmith's rule pack), plus the output shape (counts by category and severity). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby jobsmith_check sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
"Optionally filtered by category" implies when the parameter matters, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus jobsmith_check or the other pass/rule tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.