get_jobUse this when the user wants the details of one job found with search_jobs: pay, location, job type, and the employer description. Takes the job slug or the full job URL. Returns facts, the employer-written text, and the link to read the full listing and apply. Not for searching. A job that closed returns a message saying so.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | Job slug from search_jobs, or the full nextgenenergyjobs.com job URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety burden is light; the description still adds real value by describing the return content (facts, employer-written text, a link to read and apply) and the closed-job edge case that returns a message instead of details. It stops short of saying what happens with an invalid/malformed slug or URL, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Five short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then inputs, then returns, then the exclusion, then the edge case. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries distinct information.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing what comes back and covers the closed-posting case, which is the main surprising behavior. Minor gaps remain around error handling for unparseable input and whether the apply link is always present.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a job slug from search_jobs or a full nextgenenergyjobs.com URL. The description repeats that contract without adding format, normalization, or error semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (get details of one job) and enumerates the fields returned: pay, location, job type, employer description. It explicitly separates itself from search_jobs with 'Not for searching', so an agent can pick between the two siblings without opening a schema.
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?
'Use this when the user wants the details of one job found with search_jobs' gives the precondition (the job must first be found), and 'Not for searching' states the exclusion. The alternative is named and the selector condition is explicit.
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.