Fetch detailed job posting information by ID from search results. Use the job ID to access full descriptions, requirements, and application details.
Get detailed information about a specific job posting using its ID (returned from search_jobs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The unique job ID from search results (e.g., 'lever-abc123') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, permission requirements, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the object, and the prerequisite source of the ID with no extraneous detail.
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 one-parameter lookup tool, this is largely complete: the workflow dependency on search_jobs is specified and the parameter is fully described by the schema. It does not describe error behavior or the exact response shape, but those are not critical for basic invocation.
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 parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the ID comes from search_jobs but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own description.
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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get detailed information'), the specific subject ('a specific job posting'), and the key qualifier ('using its ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_jobs by focusing on a single known job rather than searching.
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?
It states the ID is '(returned from search_jobs)', which establishes the prerequisite workflow: run a search first, then fetch details for a selected job. It does not explicitly exclude other paths, but provides clear contextual usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.