kl_top_freelancersLists the freelancers featured on Karlancer's home page with their ratings and skills, enabling a quick view of reviewed professionals; use kl_freelancers to filter results.
List the freelancers Karlancer features on its home page as top rated, with rating and skills.
Use this for a quick view of the best-reviewed people; use kl_freelancers to filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context that this returns a curated, editorially featured subset rather than a query result, and that records include rating and skills. It stops short of saying how large the result set is or whether it is paginated.
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, zero filler: the first defines what the tool returns, the second handles tool selection. The purpose is front-loaded before the routing hint.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return shape, and it does mention rating and skills per freelancer. The only omission is result-set size or ordering guarantees, a minor gap for a fixed zero-arg list.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level gaps exist.
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 and resource ("List the freelancers") plus the exact scope: the curated top-rated set featured on the Karlancer home page, including rating and skills. That scope distinguishes it cleanly from the general kl_freelancers sibling without needing the schema.
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 routes the agent: use this for "a quick view of the best-reviewed people" and use kl_freelancers "to filter." The condition that selects this tool over the alternative is stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.