get_companyGet the full profile of a company by its id (Workable UUID or database _id), including open job listings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | Company id — accepts either the Workable UUID or the database _id (returned as company.id by other tools) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| logo | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| website | No | ||
| openJobs | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| openJobsUrl | Yes | ||
| openJobCount | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the response includes open job listings, but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization needs, or payload size are disclosed. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but does not exceed the annotation baseline meaningfully.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, immediately specifies the required identifier, and adds the relevant extra return content. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool returns, how to identify the company, and is consistent with the sibling tool landscape. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, companyId, is already fully documented in the schema, including accepted id formats and how the id is returned by other tools. The tool description adds no new parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get the full profile of a company') and a clear resource, with a precise identifier format ('Workable UUID or database _id'). It also adds scope ('including open job listings') and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_job, which target jobs rather than company profiles.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs a company's full profile or open job listings by company id. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set and the specific id-based retrieval.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear boundaries between search, recommendations, and recent searches. The descriptions resolve any potential overlap, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent action_noun pattern in snake_case. Get operations use 'get_', while update, withdraw, and search operations use their respective verbs, maintaining a predictable convention.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose, covering job search, application management, and profile handling without unnecessary bloat or a thin surface.
The toolset covers job search, job details, profile retrieval/update, and application withdrawal. However, there is no direct 'apply' tool, which is a notable gap in a job-focused server, though agents can work around it via external links.