Get detailed information about a specific job listing/posting by its job listing ID (not application ID). Use this to view the full job posting details including description, salary, skills, and company info. For job application details, use get_application instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The job ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full job posting details including description, salary, skills, and company info, and it clarifies the ID type (job listing ID vs application ID). It does not mention potential errors or permission requirements, but for a read-only get operation, the behavior is adequately transparent. Slight deduction for not stating that the job must exist or that it returns a single object.
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, zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and the ID distinction. The second gives the alternative tool. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 output schema, the description communicates what the response includes (description, salary, skills, company info). It also differentiates from get_application. It does not describe error behavior or authorization requirements, but for a simple get-by-id tool, this is a reasonably complete description. Slight gap: no mention of what happens if the ID is invalid.
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 schema only describes the parameter as 'The job ID'. The description adds crucial meaning by specifying it is the 'job listing ID (not application ID)', which resolves a likely ambiguity in a domain with multiple ID types. It also implies the ID should identify a job posting. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific job listing/posting, naming the resource and the action. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_application by specifying that it uses the job listing ID, not the application ID, which separates it from a key sibling tool.
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 explicitly says 'Use this to view the full job posting details' and provides a direct alternative: 'For job application details, use get_application instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named sibling tool.
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.
