Retrieve a Jobicy career role guide by /careers/ slug to view its overview, required skills, responsibilities, and levels for remote job research.
Get a public Jobicy career role guide by its /careers/ slug, including existing overview, skills, responsibilities and levels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | Career role slug. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds the useful qualifier that the guide is 'public' (no auth implied), but the enumerated sections largely restate what the output schema already conveys.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause either identifies the resource or scopes the input.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only weakness is that the listed content sections duplicate what the output schema already defines, and no edge case (e.g. invalid or unknown slug) is mentioned.
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% and the single parameter is described as 'Career role slug.', so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly further by tying the slug to the '/careers/' URL path, which tells the agent where the identifier originates and what format to expect.
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 ('Jobicy career role guide') with the lookup key ('/careers/ slug'), which separates it from sibling tools like get_job, get_company and get_related_roles. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for adjacent needs, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 description implies the tool is used when you already hold a /careers/ slug, but gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_related_roles or get_taxonomies. Guidance is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.