job_archive_addSave a job to your archive to track roles you want before applying. Enter company, job title, and job description to organize it with tags and source.
把感兴趣的岗位加入归档（收藏/长期跟踪），尚未投递时使用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jd | Yes | ||
| tags | No | 标签，如 高匹配/大厂/远程 | |
| source | No | 来源链接或渠道 | |
| company | Yes | ||
| jobTitle | Yes | ||
| matchScore | No |
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 says the job is archived/bookmarked, but not whether a duplicate archive is created, whether anything is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what the write returns — all material 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and the usage condition arrive immediately. It is arguably undersized for a 6-parameter mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 33% parameter coverage, the description should explain duplicate handling, required inputs like the full JD, and the resulting state. It stops at the one-line purpose, leaving real gaps.
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 only 33%: tags and source are documented in the schema, while jd, company, jobTitle and matchScore are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource (把感兴趣的岗位加入归档) plus the intent (收藏/长期跟踪), so an agent knows it persists a job for tracking rather than applying. It does not name the sibling it contrasts with, but the '尚未投递' qualifier implicitly separates it from job_archive_to_application.
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?
'尚未投递时使用' gives a genuine when-to-use condition, which is more than most siblings offer. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. job_archive_to_application, application_add) or states when NOT to use it, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.