job-mcp

by zvieli

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

delete_job

Hide or dismiss a job listing from view by its unique job ID to keep job search results clear and relevant.

Instructions

Dismiss or hide a job listing from view.

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": "delete_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	Unique ID of the job listing.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'dismiss or hide from view,' implying a reversible view-level action, yet the name 'delete_job' implies permanent removal; the description never states which is true, whether data is destroyed, or whether the action can be undone. That destructive-vs-reversible ambiguity is the single most important behavior for the agent and it is left unresolved.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and free of padding. Its brevity is appropriate even though it leaves important behavior underspecified.

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

Completeness2/5

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 no explanation, but the description omits the crucial destructive-vs-reversible distinction and conflicts with the tool name. For a delete-named mutation with no annotations, this leaves an agent unable to safely decide whether to call it.

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?

There is only one parameter (job_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a verb and resource ('Dismiss or hide a job listing'), but it conflicts with the tool name 'delete_job' and does not disambiguate whether the action is reversible. Sibling tools like bookmark_job and mark_job_as_applied are not distinguished, so an agent cannot confidently tell what this does relative to the family.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as bookmark_job for the same hiding/saving intent. The agent is left to infer when this tool applies.

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