Emploist

Update a job's details

update_job_details

Changes a job's title, description, department, location, work mode, or employment type; fields left out stay as they are. Published jobs must keep a description. Open jobs are live on the careers page. With rankAgain, every application to the job is ranked again against the new details, using an AI credit each.

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": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "update_job_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jobId`	Yes	The job's ID, from list_jobs.
`title`	No
`location`	No	Where the job is, e.g. Berlin. A saved one with the same name (in any letter case) is used, or a new one is saved. Null for none.
`workMode`	No	Null for not set.
`rankAgain`	No
`department`	No	A department's name, e.g. Engineering. A saved one with the same name (in any letter case) is used, or a new one is saved. Null for none.
`description`	No	HTML with only these tags: p, br, h2, h3, strong, em, u, a (http, https, or mailto links), ul, ol, li.
`employmentType`	No	Null for not set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, and the description adds value beyond them: merge semantics for omitted fields, a hard business rule (published jobs must keep a description), and a costly side effect where rankAgain re-ranks every application at one AI credit each. Auth requirements and the response shape are not covered.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences ordered by importance: what changes, invariants, then the expensive option. The sentence 'Open jobs are live on the careers page' is the weakest link and only loosely motivates why details matter, but it costs little.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers semantics, constraints, and cost implications well. It leaves open what the tool returns and whether re-ranking is asynchronous, which an agent would want before triggering a credit-consuming operation.

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 75%, and the description compensates for the main gap by fully explaining rankAgain, which has no schema description at all, including its scope (every application) and unit cost. The only remaining undocumented parameter is title, whose meaning is self-evident from the field list.

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?

Names a specific verb (changes) and resource (a job) plus the exact editable field set, and its partial-update scope distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like change_job_status, create_job, and duplicate_job.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly establishes the when-to-use case: rename/re-describe/re-classify an existing job, with protected fields omitted and unspecified fields preserved. It does not explicitly name an alternative for status changes (change_job_status), but the field list implies the boundary.

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

All Emploist 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?