Check a posted job or hired person: status, applicants, delivered work, and escrow balance before releasing payment.
Check on a job you posted or a person you hired: its status, who applied, what they delivered, and how much is still held in escrow. Call this before releasing payment so you can read the delivered work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job to look at |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the payload (status, applicants, deliverables, escrow balance) plus its role in the payment workflow. It omits any statement about permissions or whether reading is side-effect free, but the 'Check on' framing reasonably implies a read.
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 sentences, no filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the usage cue. Every clause earns its place by naming distinct returned data or a workflow action.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and its position relative to payment release. Missing only permissions/error context, which is minor at this complexity.
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?
Single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents job_id ('The job to look at'). The description adds no format, ID source, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.
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 ('Check on') and resource ('a job'), then enumerates what the retrieval covers: status, applicants, deliverables, escrowed funds. It clearly identifies this as a single-job inspection rather than a list operation, though it never names the sibling (list_jobs) it differs from.
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?
Explicitly ties itself to a workflow position: 'Call this before releasing payment so you can read the delivered work,' which links it to the release_payment sibling. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives for listing multiple jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.