Fetches complete job posting details using a job ID from search results. Returns truncated job description by default; set full=True to retrieve entire text.
職缺完整內容（job_id 來自 search_jobs）。說明預設截斷，full=True 看全文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a trait the annotations do not: the default response is truncated and full=True is needed for the complete text, which materially affects how an agent invokes the 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?
A single tightly packed sentence with parentheticals: the surface (full job content), the input source (search_jobs), and the full-text flag are all front-loaded with zero filler.
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-param read with no output schema, it discloses the key operational fact (default truncation) and the input source. It does not describe the return shape or what fields a truncated vs full response contains, which is a minor gap.
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 0%, so the description must carry the params. It explains that `full` toggles between truncated and complete text, and it clarifies the provenance of the required `job_id`, covering both parameters' meaning beyond the bare schema types.
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?
"職缺完整內容" states a specific resource (full job posting) and the parenthetical names search_jobs as the origin of job_id, which differentiates it from the sibling listing tool. It stops short of an explicit verb (get/retrieve) and does not contrast with get_company/salary_overview, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.
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?
The parenthetical "job_id 來自 search_jobs" implies the workflow (search first, then fetch), and "full=True 看全文" hints at the option, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against alternatives like get_company.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.