get_job_detailFetch complete 104 job details—salary, location, requirements, skills, benefits, and more—using the job URL or ID from search results.
取得單筆 104 職缺的完整詳情：完整職務說明、薪資、地點、學經歷要求、需求技能、語言能力、福利、產業別。傳入 search_jobs 結果中的職缺網址（url 欄位）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobUrlOrId | Yes | 職缺網址或代碼，例如 'https://www.104.com.tw/job/7uqyj' 或 '7uqyj'（用 search_jobs 回傳的 url） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It clearly signals a read-only fetch by saying 取得, and it sets expectations about what content will be returned. It does not describe error behavior or not-found cases, which is a minor gap for such a simple fetch 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?
The description is only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the content categories, and then gives the input binding instruction. Every sentence contributes value, and structure is clean and scannable.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the sort of data the agent will receive, and how to construct the input. A small residual gap is the lack of clarification around missing/invalid job URLs, but overall the instruction is complete enough for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema already provides full parameter documentation at 100% coverage, including format and example and the search_jobs context. The description repeats the instruction to use the url field from search_jobs but does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 action and resource: retrieving complete details for a single 104 job, and enumerates the content fields (薪資、地點、學經歷要求、技能、福利 etc.). It references search_jobs for the input URL, which helps distinguish it from the sibling search and company-level tools.
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 gives explicit workflow guidance: pass the jobUrl from search_jobs results. It tacitly says to use this tool when a single job's complete details are needed rather than the search tool's results, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like find_company.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.