Retrieve details for a specific Bullhorn job order by ID, optionally selecting fields, to support recruiting and placement workflows.
Get details for a specific job order by ID.
Args: job_id: The JobOrder ID fields: Comma-separated fields to return (default: all common fields)
Returns: JSON object with job details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states the return type (JSON object) but does not mention error handling (e.g., job not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. For a simple read tool, it is minimally adequate.
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 very concise, using a docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no pagination), the description covers input and output adequately. An output schema exists. It could mention behavior on missing job ID, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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 0%, but the description adds full semantics: job_id is the ID, and fields is a comma-separated string with default behavior explained. This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool gets details for a specific job by ID, using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_jobs and get_candidate.
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?
Usage is implied: use when you have a job ID and want details. But there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using list_jobs for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.