Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DrawOffer MCP Server

DrawOffer MCP Server

by ql-link
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

读取岗位

get_job
Read-only

Retrieve a job's complete description—including responsibilities, required skills, location, salary, education, experience, and notes—using its job ID.

Instructions

读取一个岗位的完整 JD：职责描述、技能要求、城市、薪资、学历与经验要求和备注。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes岗位 ID，来自 list_jobs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 elsewhere. The description adds that the read is 'complete' and lists all returned sections, which is useful, but it says nothing about behavior when the job_id does not exist or is malformed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates return fields with no filler. The field enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema, though the trailing '备注' adds little.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is exactly the right compensation, telling the agent what a 'complete JD' contains. Only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single-ID read.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_jobs, including its pattern. The description contributes no additional meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (岗位) and enumerates the fields returned in the full JD, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. The singular-resource phrasing plus the schema note '来自 list_jobs' implicitly separates it from the list_jobs sibling, though the description itself never names that alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: fetch one job's details by ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative such as list_jobs for browsing versus get_job for detail retrieval.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools