Retrieve one Indeed job posting using the 16-character job key from search, so you can inspect a specific listing's details.
Indeed job detail. Returns one Indeed job posting by its job key (the job_key field returned by search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jk | Yes | Indeed job key (16-character hex) |
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. 'Returns' implies a read-only lookup, which is a useful signal, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on a bad/expired key. Baseline-level disclosure for a simple read tool.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the tool's identity front-loaded and the parameter's origin attached immediately after. Nothing to trim.
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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, this is nearly complete: it establishes what is fetched, the key required, and where that key comes from. Only the safety/read-only posture and failure behavior are unstated, which are minor for this shape.
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 value beyond the schema: it tells the agent that `jk` is the `job_key` field returned by an earlier search, clarifying provenance rather than just format.
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 Indeed job posting by its job key.' An agent can tell this is the detail-fetch counterpart to search. It stops short of naming the sibling (indeed_search) directly, but the reference to 'the `job_key` field returned by search' anchors it clearly.
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: it points to the search flow as the source of `jk`. However it never explicitly says 'use indeed_search first, then call this to get the full posting' nor states when NOT to use it. Adequate but leaves the workflow to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.