Retrieve a single Rippling job by company board slug and job UUID to access its full HTML/text description, employment type, and work locations.
Get a single Rippling job. Returns a single Rippling job with its full HTML/text description, employment type, and work locations. The id is the job uuid from a listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Rippling job uuid | |
| company | Yes | Rippling board slug |
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 full disclosure burden. It usefully lists what is returned (full HTML/text description, employment type, work locations), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid id.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before detailing the return payload and id provenance. No wasted filler, though the return-value sentence is slightly redundant given no output schema is defined.
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 simple single-resource getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both input provenance and return contents. Completeness is good, with only auth/error behavior left unstated.
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 parameters ('id' as Rippling job uuid, 'company' as board slug) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning about the id's origin, so 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 and resource ('Get a single Rippling job') and previews the returned fields (description, employment type, work locations). It implicitly contrasts with a listing since the id comes 'from a listing', though it never names jobs_rippling_board explicitly.
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 tells you the id is the job uuid from a listing, which hints you must first use a board/listing tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.