Fetch a single Workable job posting with its full HTML/text description by supplying the company slug and posting shortcode.
Get a single Workable posting. Returns a single Workable posting with its full HTML/text description. The id is the posting shortcode from a listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Workable posting shortcode | |
| company | Yes | Workable account 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 burden. It usefully discloses the return content ('full HTML/text description'), which is real added value, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for a missing/invalid shortcode.
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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Everything stated is relevant, though the return-value sentence partly overlaps with the first sentence.
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 two-parameter detail tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns and how to source the id. Missing only behavioral caveats (auth, invalid-id handling), which are minor for this tool class.
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 100% and both parameters (id, company) are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds a mild clarification that id is a shortcode sourced from a listing, but no format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 Workable posting') and clarifies the scope is a single posting rather than a list. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling jobs_workable_postings, so sibling differentiation is left to inference from the name.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but 'The id is the posting shortcode from a listing' implies the intended workflow of obtaining the id from a listing tool first. Alternatives are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.