get_jobFetch one job posting in full: markdown description, salary ranges, locations with work mode, derived employment types, apply URL, posting dates and the canonical JobYap discussion URL. Works for expired jobs too (apply_url is null once inactive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric JobYap job id, a full jobyap.com job URL, or a job page slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists the return fields and reveals that expired jobs still return data with apply_url set to null. This goes beyond the structured metadata.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned fields, while the second sentence adds an important edge case. Every word 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?
Even without an output schema, the description provides a thorough account of the return values (markdown description, salary, locations, employment types, apply URL, dates, discussion URL). It also covers the expired-job scenario, making it complete for a single-fetch read tool with one parameter.
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 input schema's description of the 'id' parameter is comprehensive—it accepts a numeric ID, a full job URL, or a slug—achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself does not add new parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 opens with the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one job posting in full,' then enumerates the exact content fields (markdown description, salary ranges, locations, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_comments or get_job_stats, which focus on comments or statistics.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when you need the complete details of a single job posting—and highlights that it works for expired jobs, which is a useful contextual cue. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, falling short of a full 5.
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.
There are two overlapping pairs: fetch vs get_job both retrieve job details, and search vs search_jobs both search listings. While the descriptions differentiate them (fetch for search result IDs, get_job for job IDs; search for natural language, search_jobs for structured filters), an agent could easily choose the wrong one without careful reading.
Tool names mix conventions: bare verb 'fetch', 'get_' prefix on three tools, 'list_' prefix, and 'search_' prefix on three others. The pattern is not uniform, though each name does convey its purpose reasonably.
Eight tools is well within the ideal range for a job search server. Each tool covers a distinct facet (search, retrieval, comments, stats, companies, locations) and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The toolkit provides a complete read-only surface for the job search domain: searching, fetching full listings, comments, company list, and location resolution. Minor gaps like per-company detail beyond job count or a direct job-by-ID endpoint could exist, but the core workflow is covered well.