Coverlttr

Get User Job Listing

get_user_job_listing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one saved job listing by id (GET /api/job-listings/{id}). Returns full detail: id, company, position/role, source, createdAt, plus description (the full job posting — same content as jobPosition on create_cover_letter). Use after list_user_job_listings when you need the job description; list_user_job_listings never returns this field. To prepare a cover letter you can still pass this listing's id as jobListingId and omit companyName/role/jobPosition.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_job_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Job listing id from list_user_job_listings

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`advice`	Yes
`listing`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the listing payload is the full job posting and its `description` field is the same content as `jobPosition` on create_cover_letter, which tells the agent the data is interchangeable across tools. It omits error behavior for an unknown id, but the output schema covers the response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no filler. The closing cover-letter sentence is helpful but drifts into advising on a different tool's arguments, slightly diluting focus for a one-parameter read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what it returns, when to prefer it over the list sibling, and how the result feeds downstream tools. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by naming the origin of the id (list_user_job_listings) and its downstream use as `jobListingId` in create_cover_letter, adding cross-tool meaning the schema cannot express.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one saved job listing by id'), names the backing endpoint, and enumerates the returned fields including `description`. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_user_job_listings, which the agent can identify without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger ('after list_user_job_listings when you need the job description') and explains why the alternative fails for that need ('list_user_job_listings never returns this field'). It also covers a second use case, passing the id into create_cover_letter while omitting companyName/role/jobPosition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Coverlttr tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?