explore_top_skillsIdentify the most in-demand skills across saved job descriptions, filtered by role, level, or employment type, to guide your career planning.
Most in-demand skills across stored JDs, optionally filtered by role/level/type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| role_category | No | ||
| employment_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the data source (stored JDs) and optional filtering; it says nothing about aggregation basis, ranking, or how many results come back.
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?
One tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why the parameter and return semantics are underspecified.
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 an analytics tool with no output schema, an agent cannot tell what the response looks like (ranked list? counts? share percentages?) and gets no filtering vocabulary. Given 0% schema coverage and four undocumented parameters, the single sentence is not enough.
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 0% and no parameter has a description or enum, so the description carries the full burden. It names role/level/type, loosely mapping to three of the four parameters, but leaves valid values unspecified and never mentions limit at all.
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 operation and resource: ranking the most in-demand skills across stored JDs. An agent can tell what it retrieves, though it never contrasts itself with the nearby explore_skill_heatmap or explore_gap_frequency, which cover adjacent analytics.
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?
"Across stored JDs, optionally filtered by role/level/type" implies the context of use and that all filters are optional, but there is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when a sibling like explore_skill_heatmap would be the better pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.