Skip to main content
Glama
seinun-ai

Maestro Career Studio

Official
by seinun-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Application Proposals

list_proposals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve application proposals newest first with pagination, optional status filtering, and totals; check pending_review items awaiting triage or accepted items queued to apply.

Instructions

List application proposals, newest first, as {items, total}. status is one status or a comma-separated set; limit (default 20, max 50) and offset page through total. A row is a couple of thousand characters (fit and job).

status 'accepted' means the user queued the proposal for an apply run (via
the /proposals page or record_triage); 'pending_review' proposals are awaiting
the user's triage. Batch apply runs work 'accepted' proposals by convention
(the agent-apply playbook); the server also permits preparation, evidence and
consent from 'pending_review'. Each item's proposed_by names who filed it: an
MCP client's name, "you" for the web app's queue, or null. Reading expires
overdue pending_review and needs_decision proposals (terminal 'expired').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
statusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description states 'Reading expires overdue pending_review and needs_decision proposals (terminal "expired")' — i.e., invoking this read mutates persisted state. That is a direct contradiction of the read-only/idempotent claims and would mislead an agent about whether repeated calls can change results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the essential contract (what, ordering, return shape, paging) in the first two sentences, then adds status lifecycle detail. The second paragraph is dense and references internal playbook concepts, but nearly every sentence conveys distinct, non-redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({items, total}), row size, and the proposed_by provenance values, plus full status lifecycle semantics — enough to call it correctly. It omits item field details beyond proposed_by and any error/empty-result behavior, keeping it short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: status is 'one status or a comma-separated set' (the schema only says string|null), limit is default 20/max 50, and offset 'pages through total'. It adds real semantics beyond the schema, though it does not cover invalid status values or behavior past the end of the list.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List application proposals'), states ordering ('newest first') and the exact return envelope ({items, total}), which distinguishes it immediately from get_proposal, list_applications, and list_jobs. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives strong operational context: 'accepted' means queued for an apply run, 'pending_review' is awaiting triage, batch apply runs work 'accepted' by convention, and record_triage is named as the accept path. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of get_proposal when you need one row' statement, so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools