Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
job-board-mcp

job-board-mcp

by adeolaoj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_job

Retrieve a job's full description, title, location, URL, and posted date using the company and job ID from search results.

Instructions

Get one job's full description as plain text, plus its title, location, URL, and posted date.

Pass `company` and `job_id` exactly as they appear in a search_jobs result.

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": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesThe `job_id` field from the same search_jobs result.
companyYesThe `company` field from a search_jobs result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload shape and that the body arrives as plain text, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown company/job_id pair, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, return payload described first, invocation constraint second. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool is a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, so the description's field enumeration is genuinely valuable and covers what an agent needs to call it. Only the not-found/error behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already state these values come from a search_jobs result, so the description's instruction largely repeats the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no additional format or casing detail is added beyond what the schema says.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one job's full description') and enumerates the returned fields (title, location, URL, posted date, plain-text body), which clearly separates it from the bulk-oriented search_jobs sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly establishes the prerequisite: the arguments must come from a prior search_jobs result and be passed 'exactly as they appear.' It does not name alternatives or say when not to call it, but for a single-item fetch the sourcing rule is the main guidance needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools