List recorded job applications, newest first, and filter them by date, source, or status to track your application progress.
List recorded applications, newest first, optionally filtered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety semantics are covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in structured fields: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about the limit default/cap or pagination behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile a 3 is fair.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ordering constraint is stated early. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
The output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 5-parameter filtered listing with zero schema description coverage the description is incomplete — filter names, date format, and limit behavior are all absent.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. 'Optionally filtered' never names the available filters (since/until/source/status) nor the expected format of the since/until strings or the limit semantics, leaving the agent to guess from enums alone.
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 ('List') and resource ('applications'), plus ordering ('newest first'). It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate itself from nearby siblings like proof_of_applications or meineba_antraege, which an agent might also consider for application data.
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?
The phrase 'optionally filtered' implies filters exist but never says when to use this tool versus proof_of_applications or the meineba_* application endpoints. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.