get_jobs_detail_jobIdReturns the full description for a posting. Several fields are only present on some
postings; the company name is most reliably taken from the search result that
provided the jobId. Group: Jobs. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The posting's identifier, from `/jobs/search` or `/company/{companyId}/jobs`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: some fields are not present on all postings, the company name reliability caveat, and billing per call. It does not mention authentication, errors, or response shape, but the provided caveats go beyond a minimal description.
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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful caveat and billing/group metadata. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, field variability, and source of the jobId. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly, though it could mention error or auth expectations.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the jobId parameter is fully documented with its source and example. The description only references the jobId indirectly ('provided the jobId') and adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full description for a posting.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from search/list-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but 'full description' strongly implies a detail endpoint.
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 when to use the tool: when the full posting description is needed. It also provides helpful context that the company name should be taken from the search result, suggesting a relationship to search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.