get_jobGet the full description and application URL for a job returned by recommend_jobs or search_jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable job id returned by search_jobs or recommend_jobs (jobId is accepted too) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | The full job, including its description and the employer's application URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "job": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "The full job, including its description and the employer's application URL",
+ "properties": {
+ "age": {
+ "description": "Bucketed posting age; undated means the board gave no date, not that the role is fresh",
+ "enum": [
+ "new",
+ "older",
+ "stale",
+ "undated"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "company": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "eligibleCountries": {
+ "description": "Two-letter codes the role is open to",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "experience": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Years the posting itself states as { min, max }; null when it states none, absent when the description was not read",
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Stable id to pass to get_job, analyze_job_fit or optimize_resume",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "location": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "postedDaysAgo": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "remote": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "description": "When the board says the role was posted or last updated; absent when the board states none",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "The employer's own posting, which is where an application is made",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workMode": {
+ "enum": [
+ "remote",
+ "hybrid",
+ "onsite",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "job"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (full description and application URL), which is not implicit in the annotations or the simple parameter schema. It also clarifies the input provenance (jobs from recommend_jobs or search_jobs), enriching behavioral context beyond annotations.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and outcome, with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, input source, and return content without unnecessary elaboration.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description fully covers when to use it and what it returns, leaving no critical information missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100% and the id parameter is well documented ('Stable job id returned by search_jobs or recommend_jobs (jobId is accepted too)'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema handles parameter meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('full description and application URL for a job'), and it explicitly ties the input to jobs returned by recommend_jobs or search_jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_job_fit or get_job_coverage, which serve different purposes.
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 description clearly indicates when to use the tool: after obtaining a job from recommend_jobs or search_jobs. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer that this is the go-to for fetching job details, while other siblings handle analysis or optimization. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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.