Preview proposed skills mutations for LinkedIn or Naukri before applying changes, returning the result only when the provider advertises an approved update capability.
Preview a skills mutation. Disabled by default and available only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the capability gate, which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the call is non-mutating, what a preview response contains (a diff? a validation result?), or what errors occur for unsupported providers — critical context for a tool literally named 'preview' that sits next to execute_confirmed_mutation.
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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the availability constraint immediately after. No filler, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of needed detail rather than from disciplined editing.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested array-of-objects parameter, the description should explain both the preview semantics and the field/operation vocabulary. It covers only the availability gate, leaving most of what an agent needs to call this correctly unstated.
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 nothing in the schema explains the parameters, and the description adds no meaning at all. It does not clarify valid 'field' names for skill mutations, how 'set' vs 'remove' interact with 'value', the 25-item limit, or the provider enum.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Preview a skills mutation'), which clearly separates it from the other preview_* siblings such as preview_profile_update or preview_resume_update. It stops short of saying what a preview actually produces, but the action and target domain are unambiguous.
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 states a real gating condition: the tool is disabled by default and only works when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability. However, it never names the sibling that establishes that precondition (discover_provider_capabilities) nor explains the relationship to execute_confirmed_mutation, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.