Fetch full details for one Ontario Public Service job posting by numeric Job ID, including competition status that can show a filled role while the posting still appears open.
Full detail for one Ontario Public Service posting by its numeric Job ID. Reports the competition status, which can say a job is filled while the posting still reads as open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Numeric Job ID, e.g. "232882" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.8.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by warning that the competition status may say a job is filled while the posting still appears open, but it omits explicit read-only/no-side-effects confirmation and does not describe error behavior or return shape.
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 definition is two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a non-obvious data caveat without wasting words.
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 retrieval tool, the description gives enough context to select and call it correctly, especially since the schema fully documents the ID format. It could say more about what 'full detail' includes, but no output schema exists and the main operational caveat is already surfaced.
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?
There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the Job ID with an example. The description restates that it is a numeric Job ID but adds no meaningful syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 verb and resource: retrieves full detail for one Ontario Public Service posting by numeric Job ID. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_gojobs tool by emphasizing a single posting looked up by ID rather than a search.
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 makes the usage context clear enough: use it when you have a numeric Job ID and need the full posting. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_gojobs or other job-detail siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.