marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_jobs_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for a MarketSharp job by ID, including name, type, status, site address, sale and completion dates, and contract total.

Instructions

Get one job by ID: name, type, status, site address, sale and completion dates, and contract total.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "marketsharp_jobs_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	MarketSharp job ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is listing the returned fields, which substitutes for the absent output schema and tells the agent what data it will receive. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or ID scoping.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned fields in a compact list. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter read with no output schema, the field enumeration covers what an agent most needs to know before calling. The only remaining gap is error/not-found semantics, which is minor for a read-only getter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines jobId as a MarketSharp job ID. The description adds only that the lookup keys on that ID, which is minimal but consistent with the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (one job), and enumerates the record fields returned (name, type, status, address, dates, contract total). 'One job by ID' implicitly separates it from marketsharp_jobs_search, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'by ID' phrasing implies the tool is for direct lookup when an identifier is already known, which is reasonable guidance for a get-one endpoint. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no pointer to marketsharp_jobs_search for discovery, and no note on what happens when the ID is unknown or belongs to another account.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.