Retrieve complete job vacancy details including description, requirements, key skills, contacts, and employer information by providing a vacancy ID.
Get full vacancy details: description, requirements, key skills, contacts, employer info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary. | |
| vacancy_id | Yes | Vacancy ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, error scenarios, or the effect of the 'raw' parameter. The description only lists content fields without revealing operational behavior.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose. It is concise with no fluff, but could arguably include a bit more context about the raw parameter without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main content of the response but omits the raw parameter toggle and does not describe the response format. For a get-by-ID tool, this is adequate but not fully complete, especially since no output schema exists to fill the 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 100% since both parameters (vacancy_id and raw) have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantics about these parameters; it does not explain the difference between compact and raw output, nor provide any usage hints beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full vacancy details', then enumerates the specific content (description, requirements, key skills, contacts, employer info). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like search_vacancies and get_similar_vacancies.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_vacancies or get_similar_vacancies. There is no mention of prerequisites like having a vacancy_id, nor any indication that this is the tool for retrieving a specific vacancy by ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.