Retrieve recent campus recruitment announcements, job fairs, and information sessions with dates, times, venues, and status; filter by type, keyword, or result limit.
就业服务网最新动态：招聘公告 / 招聘会 / 宣讲会三区块（首页公开面，含日期、时段、场地与状态）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | 类型过滤：campus=招聘公告 jobfair=招聘会 teachin=宣讲会；缺省全部。 | |
| limit | No | 最多返回条数，默认 20。 | |
| keyword | No | 标题/场地子串过滤。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal that this is a public homepage surface (implying no authentication) and that entries carry date, time slot, venue, and status. But it never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or sorted, or how fresh 'latest' actually is — significant omissions for an unannotated tool.
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, and the three-block scope comes before the field-level parenthetical. The stacked parentheses make it slightly dense, but nothing 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?
For a read-only listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: the shape of returned entries (date, time slot, venue, status). Only freshness/pagination and explicit read-only signaling are left unstated.
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 100%, so kind, limit, and keyword are fully documented in the schema, including the enum mapping. The description's three-block list merely restates the enum values and adds no filtering semantics (e.g., whether keyword matches across blocks) beyond what the schema already says.
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 a specific resource (career service site latest updates) and enumerates the three content blocks it returns (recruitment notices, job fairs, info sessions). The 'latest/homepage' framing implicitly separates it from career_detail and career_deep, though it never names those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'latest' and 'homepage public surface' suggest a quick snapshot, and the sibling names career_deep/career_detail hint that this is the shallow listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.