Fetch a single Recruitee offer by company subdomain and offer ID, returning its full HTML/text description and structured compensation when available.
Get a single Recruitee offer. Returns a single Recruitee offer with its full HTML/text description and structured compensation when the board exposes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Recruitee offer id | |
| company | Yes | Recruitee subdomain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it usefully discloses that the return includes the full HTML/text description and structured compensation, and adds the 'when the board exposes it' conditional. It omits error/not-found behavior and any permission or rate-limit context, keeping it only moderately transparent.
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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional return detail trailing it. 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 two-param, single-item fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is retrieved and roughly what comes back, including the conditional caveat. It still leaves gaps on how to source the required id/company and how missing or hidden offers are signaled.
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 both 'id' and 'company' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a single Recruitee offer'), and the word 'single' signals it is not the list variant (jobs_recruitee_offers). It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. It never tells the agent to obtain the id/company via jobs_recruitee_offers first, nor when this detail call is preferable to the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.