取得單一職缺的應徵者競爭情報分析：透過數學精算反推確切應徵人數（total），以及學歷、年資、年齡、語言、主要科系、擅長技能與證照分布。僅在評估競爭態勢或求職信對齊時使用。
取得單一職缺的應徵者競爭情報分析：透過數學精算反推確切應徵人數（total），以及學歷、年資、年齡、語言、主要科系、擅長技能與證照分布。僅在評估競爭態勢或求職信對齊時使用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobUrlOrId | Yes | 104 職缺網址或代碼，例如 'https://www.104.com.tw/job/7bsyk' 或 '7bsyk' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the applicant count is back-derived through mathematical calculation and lists the returned distributions. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects.
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?
The description consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and output dimensions are front-loaded, followed by the usage restriction, making it efficient and well-structured.
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 1-parameter analytics tool without an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool computes and lists the return dimensions. It lacks some detail about the response format and caveats around derived estimates, but covers the essentials an agent needs to decide and call.
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%, and the single parameter jobUrlOrId is already documented with examples in the schema. The description implies a single job posting but does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: '取得單一職缺的應徵者競爭情報分析' (obtain applicant competition intelligence analysis for a single job posting). It enumerates the analysis dimensions, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like job104_get_details, but the single-posting competition-analysis scope is distinctive.
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 final sentence provides an explicit usage condition: '僅在評估競爭態勢或求職信對齊時使用' (use only when assessing competitive situation or aligning cover letter). This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.