get-jobReturns one authorized job using bounded customer, schedule, status, and technician fields; service addresses, notes, and amounts are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Job ID returned by search-jobs or jobs-today. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the field scope (bounded and excluded) and the 'authorized' aspect, which informs the agent about response limitations. There is no contradiction with the 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently communicates the field boundaries. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Without an output schema, the description conveys the essential response scope: it returns a single job with certain field groups and excludes others. This is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could be more explicit about the exact fields included. Overall, it is substantially complete.
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 fully covers the single parameter (job_id) with a descriptive note about its source. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so with 100% schema coverage the 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 clearly states the action ('Returns one authorized job') and the resource ('job'), and specifies the scope of returned fields ('bounded customer, schedule, status, and technician fields') plus exclusions ('service addresses, notes, and amounts'). This differentiates it from sibling tools that return other entities or multiple jobs.
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 implies usage for retrieving a single job by ID, as it says 'Returns one job'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search-jobs or jobs-today, nor does it state exclusion conditions. The schema description does provide the origin of the job_id, but that is outside the tool description.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.