Fetch full details of a LinkedIn job posting, including description, company, location, applicant count, and Easy Apply support. Use job ID or URL to retrieve this information.
Trae el detalle completo de una oferta: descripción, empresa, ubicación, número de solicitantes y si admite Solicitud sencilla.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | Id numérico o URL de la oferta. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an authenticated session, whether it navigates or mutates browser state, or whether it can fail for closed/expired postings.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is directly useful given there is no output schema, though it is slightly long for the amount of actionable information conveyed.
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 an exhaustive schema and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned payload, which partly compensates for the missing output schema. It is still incomplete on session/auth requirements, which matter in this browser-automation toolset.
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% — the single "job" parameter already documents that it accepts a numeric ID or URL. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ("Trae") and resource ("detalle completo de una oferta") and enumerates the returned fields (description, company, location, applicant count, Easy Apply flag), which distinguishes it from linkedin_jobs_search. It never names a sibling or exclusion explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says this should be called after linkedin_jobs_search to resolve a job ID, nor that linkedin_job_apply is the follow-up action. No prerequisites (e.g. an active logged-in session) are mentioned despite this being a browser-backed session tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.