Fetch complete details for a specific job by ID, including description, required skills, notes, and evaluation data.
Get full details of a specific job by ID, including description, skills, notes, and evaluation data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID to get details for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the return payload (description, skills, notes, evaluation data), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the ID must belong to the caller, or behavior on a missing/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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the enumerated return fields appended compactly. No wasted words.
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 read-only, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key, and the notable contents of the result. It falls short only on error/permission behavior, which for this tool class 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 100% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, source, or validity guidance beyond the schema. 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 (get) and resource (job details) scoped to a single job by ID, which cleanly separates it from the bulk list tool get_jobs and the narrower get_job_evaluation. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the scope 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?
Usage is implied: fetch full details for one known job ID. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_jobs, get_job_evaluation, or get_job_cover_letter instead, and no prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.