Liefert die vollständigen Details zu einer Stellenanzeige anhand ihrer id (aus search_jobs). Das Feld apply_url ist der Bewerbungslink zur Original-Anzeige. WICHTIG: apply_url NICHT selbst aufrufen oder abrufen — gib den Link dem Nutzer als anklickbaren Link aus, damit er sich bei Interesse selbst bewirbt bzw. die vollständige Anzeige öffnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Die id eines Treffers aus search_jobs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adds important context: it is a fetch operation, and it warns about not invoking the apply_url. This covers key behavioral aspects, though read-only nature is implied rather than explicit.
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?
Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second notes an important field, third gives a critical warning. No fluff, information is front-loaded.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage caution. It could briefly list key return fields, but the current level is functional and adequate.
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 single parameter 'id' is sufficiently described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only repeats that it comes from search_jobs, adding no new semantic value beyond the 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 the tool returns complete details of a job posting by id, referencing the sibling tool search_jobs as the source of the id. It differentiates itself by focusing on fetching a single record.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (with id from search_jobs) and includes a crucial instruction not to call apply_url directly but to provide it as a clickable link. This provides clear behavioral guidance.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_jobs retrieves a list of job listings, while fetch_job returns detailed information for a specific job by ID. There is no overlap.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: search_jobs and fetch_job, which is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but still covers the core search and detail retrieval workflow. However, it feels thin for a job search domain that could benefit from additional filtering or categorization tools.
The tool set provides the essential search and detail retrieval functionality. A minor gap is the lack of explicit search parameters in search_jobs (e.g., keyword, location), but the overall flow is complete for basic use.
