Retrieve job listings from companies on LinkedIn to support recruitment research and market analysis.
Get company jobs
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_company_jobs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns. The emptiness of the input schema also raises unaddressed questions about implicit dependencies.
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 description is extremely short (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential context and structure, such as clarifying the scope or output, making it unhelpful for an AI agent.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, empty input schema, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned, how the company is identified, or how this tool fits with the multitude of sibling tools. The agent would have no way to use this tool correctly based solely on this definition.
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 are no parameters in the input schema, and the description adds no value beyond that. However, the absence of parameters is peculiar (how does the tool know which company?), and the description fails to explain how the company is determined, which is a critical semantic gap.
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 'Get company jobs' clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (company jobs), but it lacks specificity about what 'company jobs' entails (e.g., listing all jobs, job details?). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_jobs_count or search_jobs, especially since the input schema is empty, leaving ambiguity about how the company is identified.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_jobs, get_company_details, or get_company_jobs_count. It also fails to mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.