Read the structured job posting (schema.org JobPosting) from a web page: title, employer, locations, remote, employment type, dates, salary, requirements, description and the apply link. Returns the job, never the people: contact persons, email addresses and phone numbers are removed. A page without a posting is not charged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The posting's page: an employer's career page or a job board's detail page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it explicitly promises never to return people, removes contact persons/emails/phones, and states that pages without a posting are not charged. It could add error/timeout behavior, but the key behavioral caveats are present.
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?
Three compact sentences: the first identifies the tool and its output fields, the second adds a critical privacy behavior, the third adds the billing rule. No filler or redundancy.
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 a single fully-documented parameter and no siblings, the description covers input, output fields, privacy behavior, and billing. It lacks a formal return shape, but since there is no output schema, the enumerated fields are enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 only parameter, url, is already fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as the posting page, and the tool description mostly restates this. It adds contextual nuance that the page must contain structured JobPosting, but the schema already captures the input semantics.
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 ('Read') and resource ('structured job posting (schema.org JobPosting) from a web page'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic web scraping or people lookup, and there are no siblings to conflate it with.
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 establishes when to use the tool: on a URL that is a job posting page containing schema.org JobPosting, and notes that pages without a posting are not charged. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tools exist, so this is a clear enough usage context.
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.