get_job_details
Get detailed information about a specific job role including responsibilities, requirements, and tech stack.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Job slug (e.g., "devops-engineer", "ai-engineer") |
ruzora
by com.ruzora
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the content returned (responsibilities, requirements, tech stack) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, error handling for invalid slugs, or authentication requirements. The name implies a safe read operation, but the description is minimal on behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the purpose and listing the content categories. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. It is optimally concise for a simple read tool.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (responsibilities, requirements, tech stack). It does not describe the return format, but the verb 'Get' and the list of content categories provide sufficient completeness for an agent to understand the tool's output. Sibling tools like 'list_open_roles' and 'get_company_info' confirm the context is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'slug' parameter. The tool description adds value by listing the types of information returned (responsibilities, requirements, tech stack), which clarifies the purpose of the parameter. However, this is marginal beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific job role', and lists the content categories (responsibilities, requirements, tech stack). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_open_roles' (which provides a list) and 'create_factory_inquiry' (which creates a new record), making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage when an agent needs detailed information about a single job role, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing all roles) or mention alternatives like 'list_open_roles'. The guidance is clear but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct purpose: factory inquiries, hiring leads, company information, job details, open roles, demos, and candidate applications. There is no ambiguity in their target actions or stakeholders (client vs. candidate).
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_factory_inquiry or list_open_roles. The minor inconsistency is that get_job_details and get_company_info use 'get' while others use 'create', 'list', or 'request', but the pattern is still predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a recruitment and software services server. Each tool covers a necessary interaction (inquiries, applications, demos, info, role listing) without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: company info, role discovery, applying/inquiring, and demo requests. A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations for inquiries or applications, but for this domain those are typically handled out-of-band, so the surface is reasonably complete.