Remove a location from a job post using its location ID, found in the post's locations array via get_job_post.
Remove a location from a job post. Write operation.
To find job_post_location_id: get_job_post → locations[].id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_post_location_id | Yes | Job post location ID — the id in a post's locations array |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose 'Write operation', which is genuinely useful, but it does not say whether the removal is permanent, whether it affects previously published job boards, or what happens if the location ID is already gone.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the action statement front-loaded ahead of the ID-discovery hint. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, mutability, and ID sourcing. It is only missing confirmation of permanence and failure behavior.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by giving a concrete retrieval path for the ID (get_job_post → locations[].id), which tells the agent where the value actually comes from.
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 ('Remove a location from a job post'), which is unambiguous and implicitly pairs against the sibling add_job_post_location. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 only implied: you call this when you want a location detached from a job post. There is no statement of when not to use it, no named alternative, and no note about prerequisites or side effects of removing a location.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.