get_jobRetrieve full job ad details—description, requirements, conditions, contacts, and application instructions—using the ad ID returned by job search.
Full ad details: description, requirements, conditions, contacts and how to apply. The ID comes from search_jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Ad ID, e.g. "31579964" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety and freshness are covered. The description contributes the useful distinction that this returns the full ad body versus a search teaser, but says nothing about behavior on an invalid or expired ID.
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 with no filler. The returned-content list comes first and the ID provenance second, which is the order an agent needs it in.
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, enumerating the returned fields compensates well for the missing return definition, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only edge-case behavior for a bad ID is unaddressed.
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 already documents the single parameter's format with an example. The description adds genuine meaning on top by specifying provenance — the ID must come from search_jobs — which the schema does not say.
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?
States the resource and enumerates the payload it returns (description, requirements, conditions, contacts, application method), which makes clear this is a full-detail fetch rather than a listing. It names search_jobs as the source of the ID, implicitly differentiating it from the search sibling, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or says 'single job ad'.
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 ID comes from search_jobs" gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling this one. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when only summaries are needed) or what happens with a stale/unknown ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.