Extracts structured job description from a URL or raw text, turning unstructured postings into organized data for job-hunting campaigns.
Extract structured job description from a URL or raw text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Job posting URL | |
| text | No | Raw job description text | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only scrape (network fetch, possible failures/timeouts), whether results are persisted under the required 'campaign', or what the caller gets back beyond the vague phrase 'structured job description'.
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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing usage detail.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much uncovered: which of url/text is expected, that neither is schema-required while campaign is, and what 'structured' means in terms of returned fields.
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%, so the schema already documents url, text, and campaign. The description only echoes the url/text duality and adds no format, precedence, or campaign semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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 (extract) and resource (structured job description) plus the two accepted input sources (URL or raw text). It does not differentiate from any sibling, but the siblings listed are in an unrelated domain so the purpose is still unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no instruction on whether to supply url, text, or both. The description mentions two input modes but never states the selection rule or what happens if both are passed or neither is passed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.