get_jobFetch full details for a specific job posting by ID, including description and application link. Pair this with search_jobs to access complete information for any listed position.
Full detail for a single posting by its id, including the description and the application link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Posting id returned by search_jobs. | |
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that the response includes the full description and application link, which is not visible in annotations or schema.
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 conveys the essential purpose and key response contents. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 simple read-only retrieval tool, the description plus annotations provide sufficient context. There is no output schema, but the description names the main fields returned. The optional format parameter's meaning is the only notable gap.
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 50%: the required 'id' parameter is well-described, while 'format' has only an enum without explanation. The description adds little beyond the schema, only restating that retrieval is by id; it does not clarify the meaning or effect of the format parameter.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('get'), a concrete resource ('single posting'), and the key selector ('by its id'). It also identifies what the returned detail includes, making the tool's distinct role clear relative to sibling search_jobs.
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 description implies this tool is used after obtaining a posting id, and the schema reinforces that the id is 'returned by search_jobs.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for basic routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.