Lists the job boards on a jobwatch watchlist, including entry, display name, and careers page, plus the watchlist file path. Use it to see which boards fetch_jobs checks.
The boards on the watchlist (entry, display name, careers page) and where the watchlist file is. Use it to see what fetch_jobs checks; add_board and remove_board change it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what the listing contains and that the same watchlist is mutated by add_board/remove_board. It does not cover permissions or freshness of the watchlist file, so it stops short of a 5.
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 with no filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded. The second sentence compresses three separate ideas (usage, alternative reads, mutating siblings) and the first is a verbless fragment, which costs it a point on polish but not on economy.
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, no output schema, and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the remaining burden is explaining what comes back and how it relates to siblings — which the description does. Minor omissions (whether the file path is user-specific, whether the list can be empty) keep it from a 5.
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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly does not invent parameter talk, though it also gives no hint about whether output ordering or scoping can be controlled.
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?
The description names the specific resource (boards on the watchlist) and enumerates the returned fields (entry, display name, careers page) plus the watchlist file location. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings add_board/remove_board/fetch_jobs, so an agent can identify it 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states when to use it ('see what fetch_jobs checks') and names the alternatives that mutate the same data ('add_board and remove_board change it'). The when-to-use condition and the sibling routing are both explicit rather than inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.