Skip to main content
Glama

tes_job_employer

Read-only

Fetch a Tes employer profile by ID with school details and current openings. Use tes_job_detail for a job, tes_school_search to find schools, or tes_job_search to find vacancies.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "tes_job_employer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTes employer id

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Tes employer id"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail (school details plus current openings are returned), but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or whether openings are paginated. Given annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by sibling routing. Efficient and purposeful, though the routing clause is the only thing keeping it from being maximally tight.

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?

For a single-ID lookup with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to prefer a sibling. Return-value structure is handled by the output schema, so the remaining omission is minor.

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?

With 1 parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the 'id' field as 'Tes employer id'. The description's 'by ID' phrasing adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (Tes employer profile), lookup key (by ID), and the payload returned (school details and current openings). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch jobs or schools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use tes_job_detail for a job, tes_school_search to find schools, tes_job_search to find vacancies. This names the alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.