get_jobFetch a job posting's full description, requested skills, and salary text using its ID from a prior job search.
Full description of a posting returned by search_jobs, rank_jobs_for_me or market_snapshot, with the skills it asks for and its salary text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Posting id from a previous result, e.g. "remotive:1923456". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes required skills and salary text, but says nothing about the remaining return shape, error behavior for a stale/unknown id, or rate limits. Adequate given the annotation coverage, but not rich.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads what the tool returns, then the provenance of the id, then the notable payload fields. No filler or restated title.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source of the id, and the two most decision-relevant return fields. Only the full response shape and id-miss behavior are unstated, which is a minor gap.
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?
One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, with the schema itself giving the format and an example ('remotive:1923456'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Names the resource (a posting's full description) and the exact payload it returns — skills and salary text. It also names the sibling tools that produce the ids it consumes (search_jobs, rank_jobs_for_me, market_snapshot), which cleanly separates it from those list-level siblings.
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?
By tying the tool to ids 'returned by search_jobs, rank_jobs_for_me or market_snapshot', it makes the usage context clear: call this after a search to expand a specific posting. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative for bulk retrieval, so it is not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.