add_application_recordStore a job application with company, job title, status, and job description text to track and review your job-search progress.
旧版工具名，等价于 application_add（jdText → jd）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jdText | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| company | Yes | ||
| jobTitle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key migration fact (jdText is renamed to jd) but omits whether the tool is deprecated, whether it is safe to use alongside application_add, and any side effects of creating a record. This is minimal behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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 short sentence that front-loads the essential alias relationship. It is appropriately sized and wastes no words, though it could have used the space to say more since it is so brief.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It covers only the rename mapping and omits required parameters, behavior, and deprecation guidance.
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. It only maps one parameter (jdText -> jd) and says nothing about company, jobTitle, or status, including their required/optional status. Three of four parameters are left undocumented in both schema and description.
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 this is a legacy alias equivalent to application_add, which is a specific mapping, but it never says what the tool actually does in functional terms (add an application record). It relies entirely on the reader knowing what application_add does. This is clearer than a pure tautology but still vague on purpose.
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?
It implies when to use it: only as a backwards-compatible alias for application_add. However, it does not explicitly say 'use application_add instead and avoid this' nor when-not-to-use it, leaving the agent to infer deprecation status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.