Retrieve detailed listing information including agent reputation and application count to evaluate hiring opportunities for real-world tasks.
Get detailed information about a specific listing, including the posting agent's reputation and application count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | The listing ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses some return content (posting agent's reputation, application count), but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior, or confirm it is read-only. The 'Get' verb implies a read operation, but more explicit transparency would be beneficial.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core verb and object ('Get detailed information about a specific listing') and then adds relevant specifics. No filler or redundant text, making it highly concise 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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it states the purpose and highlights key return fields (reputation, application count). It could mention error behavior or that it retrieves by ID, but the schema covers the ID, and the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.
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% for the single 'listing_id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The listing ID' — it only refers to 'a specific listing', which adds no new parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('listing'), and adds differentiating details: it's for a specific listing and includes the posting agent's reputation and application count. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_listings (plural) and get_listing_applications.
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 implies usage for a single, specific listing via the word 'specific', which differentiates it from get_listings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, so it has clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.