jobs_getOne job posting with its description, salary range and apply link.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "jobs_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully previews the returned fields, but says nothing about failure behavior for a missing slug or whether the data is cached/live.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and its payload. No wasted language, though it could squeeze in the slug hint.
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?
No output schema, but the description names the key returned fields, and annotations cover the read-only profile. For a single-parameter lookup the coverage is nearly sufficient, short only on the slug semantics.
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?
There is one parameter (slug) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap, leaving the agent to guess what a slug looks like.
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 resource — one job posting — and previews its contents (description, salary range, apply link). The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jobs_list, though it doesn't name that sibling outright.
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 singular 'One job posting' implies this is the detail lookup versus jobs_list for enumeration, but the description never explicitly says when to use this instead of jobs_list or what happens with an unknown slug.
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.