Ask GorillaDesk (gorilladesk-mcp)

get_job

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific job's complete details using its unique ID, enabling quick access to job information for your pest business.

Instructions

Fetch one job by id.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes
`include`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication, or edge cases, staying minimal. It aligns with annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, an output schema that clarifies return values, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate for basic retrieval. However, the unexplained 'include' parameter prevents a perfect score, as users/agents won't know how to utilize it without further info.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'id' for job_id, which is already evident from the schema, and entirely omits the 'include' parameter. This leaves a significant semantic gap for the optional parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one job' with the key identifier 'by id'. This differentiates it from siblings like search_jobs, which imply broader querying.

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 description implies usage when you have a specific job id, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_jobs or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The distinction is implicit from the tool name and wording rather than explicit in the description.

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