get_employerA company listed on BinaSmart: what it does, its address and location when we hold them, and every vacancy it has posted. By employer slug from list_jobs or get_job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Employer slug, e.g. from list_jobs employer_url |
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context ('every vacancy it has posted' and 'when we hold them' for address/location), but it does not describe response structure, potential absence of data beyond that caveat, or error behavior.
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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource, enumerates the key returned content, and adds the essential provenance instruction for the slug. Every clause earns its place.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input source, the main returned content, and the caveat about missing location data. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return shape, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the slug parameter with an example source. The description adds marginal value by also mentioning get_job as a slug source, but it does not fundamentally expand parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly identifies the resource (a company listed on BinaSmart) and the returned content: company details, address/location when available, and all posted vacancies. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating the slug comes from list_jobs or get_job, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.
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 you have an employer slug from list_jobs or get_job and want company-level details plus all vacancies. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_job or explain when one should be preferred over the other.
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.