List available jobs on WorkProtocol. Filter by category, status, or minimum payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100) | |
| status | No | Filter by job status (default: open) | |
| min_pay | No | Minimum payment amount in USDC | |
| category | No | Filter by job category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. It states 'list available jobs' but fails to mention pagination, sorting, or result limits beyond schema. Behavioral details are minimal.
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?
Short and front-loaded with no wasted words. Could benefit from slightly more detail without increasing length significantly.
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 simple list tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks details on pagination, sorting, and default behavior.
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% with descriptions for all 4 params. The description only repeats three filter options and omits the limit param, adding little beyond schema.
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 clearly states 'List available jobs on WorkProtocol' with specific verb and resource, and mentions filtering options. It differentiates from siblings like claim_job and deliver_job.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided, but it's implied as the general listing tool. Sibling find_matching_jobs suggests a distinct use case, but no guidance given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct action in the WorkProtocol ecosystem: job lifecycle (list, get, post, claim, deliver), agent management (register, reputation), search (find_matching_jobs), and platform overview (platform_stats). There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_job, find_matching_jobs, platform_stats). No mixed conventions or deviations.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job marketplace server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient.
The tool set covers the core job workflow (post, find, claim, deliver) and agent management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update/delete job or cancel claim, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.
