Search BERUFENET occupations by name and return profession IDs for get_profession to retrieve detailed occupation data.
Find occupations in BERUFENET; returns profession ids for get_profession.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| query | Yes | Occupation name, e.g. 'Fachinformatiker', 'Erzieher' |
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's added value is the note that results are IDs feeding get_profession. It says nothing about result limits, the size parameter's effect, or pagination behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the output relationship appended. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. The description is essentially sufficient for a two-parameter read-only search, with only the 'size' parameter's behavior left implicit.
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 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema with examples, but 'size' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case for this coverage level.
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 concrete verb+resource ('Find occupations in BERUFENET') and clarifies the output contract (returns profession ids to feed get_profession), which separates it from the downstream get_profession tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other search_* siblings (search_jobs, search_courses), leaving slight ambiguity about scope.
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 mention that it 'returns profession ids for get_profession' implies a search-then-retrieve pattern, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to alternative search tools, so usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.