Lists configured job sources and verifies their reachability so you can confirm which feeds are available before running job searches.
Show which job sources are configured and whether they are reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_connectivity | No | Make one tiny request per source to confirm it works |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| sources | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that it reports reachability, implying connectivity checks, but it does not disclose that the default behavior may make network requests per source or discuss latency implications.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of it contributes to identifying the resource and the reported state.
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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. Its main omission is any explicit note about the network behavior implied by connectivity checking.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema as making one tiny request per source. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it shows configured job sources and whether they are reachable. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which search jobs, fetch job details, or analyze work authorization.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.