AgentX x402 Services (paid MCP tools)

get_ats_job_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full job detail from Greenhouse or Lever by id or hosted URL: title, location, department, full description. GET /x402/ats-job? — $0.01.

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "get_ats_job_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Job id
`url`	No	Or hosted job URL (greenhouse.io/lever.co)
`company`	Yes	Board slug
`payment`	No	Optional. Your x402 payment proof for this exact call — the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value produced by settling this route's 402 challenge (USDC on Base, Polygon or Solana), or an MPP 'Authorization: Payment ...' value. Omit on a first call: the tool then returns the live 402 challenge to pay against. This server relays your proof upstream and retries; it never creates or settles payments itself.
`platform`	Yes	greenhouse or lever

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / payment / description

Previous value: -"Optional. Your x402 payment proof for this exact call — the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value produced by settling this route's 402 challenge (USDC on Base or Solana), or an MPP 'Authorization: Payment ...' value. Omit on a first call: the tool then returns the live 402 challenge to pay against. This server relays your proof upstream and retries; it never creates or settles payments itself."New value: +"Optional. Your x402 payment proof for this exact call — the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value produced by settling this route's 402 challenge (USDC on Base, Polygon or Solana), or an MPP 'Authorization: Payment ...' value. Omit on a first call: the tool then returns the live 402 challenge to pay against. This server relays your proof upstream and retries; it never creates or settles payments itself."

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack — the upstream endpoint and the $0.01 cost — but stays silent on the 402 payment retry flow and on error behavior, leaving that entirely to the schema's payment parameter text.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence front-loads the resource, platforms and lookup key, then the returned fields, then price. Efficient, with only minor waste in the dangling 'GET /x402/ats-job?' fragment and the cryptic '— $0.01' shorthand.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, and the payment parameter is thoroughly explained in the schema. Missing only edge-case behavior (not-found results, invalid platform/slug) for a tool whose call mechanics are otherwise well covered.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including the payment proof are already documented. The description only restates the id-vs-url alternative and the greenhouse/lever values, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (full job detail) plus the two source platforms and the two lookup keys (id or hosted URL), and enumerates the returned fields (title, location, department, description). This makes it clearly the single-record counterpart to search_ats_jobs, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail lookup used after or instead of a search, and that a board slug plus platform are prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of what to do if the job id is unknown.

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

All AgentX x402 Services (paid MCP tools) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?