Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

jobstack-mcp

by io.github.IsaiahDupree
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a single job by source + id

get_job
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one job posting by its source engine and native id, returned as { meta, job } with the same flat Job shape search_jobs yields. The id is the native upstream id as returned by that source in search results (NOT prefixed with the source name). Exception: for source="ats" the id is a composite "board:company:nativeId" string (e.g. "greenhouse:airbnb:7995153") so the lookup can round-trip to the right ATS board. Not every source supports single-job lookup — a search-only source returns a not_supported / not_found error.

Tool call template

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNative upstream job id as returned by that source. For source="ats", the composite "board:company:nativeId" string.
sourceYesThe engine that produced the job (matches the Job.source field from search_jobs).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond by disclosing the exact return envelope ({ meta, job }), the flat Job shape matching search_jobs, the critical id-format caveat (NOT prefixed with source name), the composite ATS format with a concrete example, and the error behavior for unsupported sources. This is rich behavioral context that adds real value.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then progressively adds essential caveats. Every sentence contributes unique information (return shape, id rules, source limitations) with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter, simple fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the return shape, id semantics, ATS exception, and error behavior when a source doesn't support single-job lookup. The sibling search_jobs is referenced, and the safety profile is already in annotations. No significant gaps exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it emphasizes that the id is the native upstream id as returned by search results, explicitly warns against prefixing with source name, and details the ATS composite format for round-tripping. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Fetch one job posting by its source engine and native id, returned as { meta, job } with the same flat Job shape search_jobs yields." This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_jobs (single vs. list) and fully conveys the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: it specifies the input (source + native id), explains the id semantics, and notes when the tool cannot be used ("Not every source supports single-job lookup — a search-only source returns a not_supported / not_found error"). However, it does not explicitly say "use search_jobs instead when you need to list jobs," so the alternative guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All jobstack-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources