Fetch a single Apple Careers job posting by its job ID to retrieve structured details for a specific requisition or pipeline retail role.
Apple Jobs single posting. Returns one Apple Careers posting by its job id (the id field returned by search, e.g. 200674676-0836 for a specific requisition or PIPE-200314122 for an evergreen/pipeline retail role).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Apple job id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a read/retrieval ('Returns one'), but adds nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for a missing id. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
Two efficient sentences that lead with the core purpose and follow with the id-format detail. The example values are somewhat verbose but earn their place by clarifying the id shape.
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 single-parameter id-lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and where the id comes from, which is enough to call it correctly. It could say more about the returned posting's fields, but that is minor here.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Apple job id' by giving concrete id formats and distinguishing requisition ids from evergreen/pipeline retail ids.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one Apple Careers posting by its job id'), clearly a single-item lookup. It also references the sibling 'search' as the source of the id, so an agent can distinguish this from apple_jobs_search without opening the schema.
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 establishes the workflow context by noting the id is 'the `id` field returned by search', implying this is used after a search to fetch full details. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion condition, so it falls short of the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.