Fetch complete Jobbörse job ad details by reference number: employer, locations, contract terms, full description, and application link.
Full job ad from the Jobbörse: description, locations, employer, contract details, link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference_number | Yes | Referenznummer of the offer, e.g. '10001-1000911926-S' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope of returned content (full ad fields), which is modest added value; nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure modes.
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 listing the returned contents with zero padding. Efficient, though a routing clause would have earned the space it uses.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the ad's contents. For a one-param read tool with full annotation coverage, this is sufficient.
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% and the parameter is already documented with a format example ('10001-1000911926-S'). The description adds no further meaning about the reference_number, so 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+resource (retrieve a full job ad) and enumerates what the ad contains: description, locations, employer, contract details, link. Clear purpose, but it never names its sibling search_jobs to make the search-vs-detail distinction explicit.
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 and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves a single ad by reference while search_jobs locates ads. No preconditions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.