Chatrabajo finds open, verified jobs in Argentina and Latin America, including remote jobs open to the region. Tell Chatrabajo what role you want, or share your CV, and it shows the jobs that fit, why each one fits, and the link to apply on the original posting.
Two read-only tools:
search_jobs: searches by role, location, work mode and seniority. It can also return only jobs found in the last few days, to check for new postings. match_jobs_to_cv: matches jobs to the job-relevant facts of a CV
Scored across 2 tools
Both tools return job matches and share parameters (role, skills, location, work mode), which creates mild overlap. However, the descriptions clearly delineate the triggers: match_jobs_to_cv is for when a CV is shared, search_jobs for when the user states what they want, so an agent can reasonably choose between them.
Both names use snake_case with a verb-first structure (match_, search_), which is predictable and readable. match_jobs_to_cv is a longer noun phrase than search_jobs, a minor deviation, but the pattern is still coherent.
Two tools is thin for a job-search server; a surface that only searches and matches leaves room for complementary operations. The count is borderline rather than excessive, so it is workable but minimal.
The search and CV-matching lifecycle is covered and results include an apply link, but there is no way to retrieve full job detail, filter options, or track/save applications. Notable gaps exist for a job-seeking domain.
Finds verified, currently open jobs in Argentina/LATAM that fit a CV the user shared. Read the CV yourself and pass only its job-relevant facts: current or target title, related roles, skills, location and a short professional summary, plus seniority only if the person states one. Never pass the person's name, email, phone number, address or ID numbers. Chatrabajo keeps only an anonymous record of the roles, location and work mode searched, never the summary or skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roles | No | Other roles the CV qualifies for, including the usual names for the same job | |
| title | Yes | Current or target job title from the CV | |
| skills | No | Skills or tools, e.g. ["Excel", "Facturación"] or ["React", "TypeScript"] | |
| summary | No | Two or three sentences about experience and strengths, with no personal or contact details | |
| location | No | Where the person lives or wants to work, e.g. "Córdoba, Argentina". Defaults to Argentina. | |
| workMode | No | Only when the person states a preference | |
| newWithinDays | No | Only jobs Chatrabajo found in the last N days. Use 1 in a daily scheduled task, so each run shows only new jobs. Leave it out to get every open job | |
| experienceLevel | No | Only when the person states a seniority. Leave it out to get every level |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: results are 'verified' and currently open, and it discloses data handling ('keeps only an anonymous record of the roles, location and work mode searched, never the summary or skills'). No rate limits or result-count behavior, so not a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the data-extraction rules and then the privacy note. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction; slightly dense at three sentences but no filler.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, input hygiene and privacy. The one missing piece is how this relates to search_jobs, which is the agent's only real ambiguity for an 8-parameter matcher.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by imposing a hard PII prohibition (never pass name, email, phone, address or ID numbers) and by restating the conditional nature of seniority and work mode, which meaningfully constrains what the agent should put in those fields.
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 and resource ('Finds verified, currently open jobs... that fit a CV') plus a geography scope (Argentina/LATAM). Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_jobs tool, so an agent has no in-description basis for choosing between them.
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?
Gives concrete usage context: the agent must read the CV itself and pass only job-relevant facts, seniority/work mode only when stated, and newWithinDays=1 for a daily scheduled run. It stops short of naming when-to-use versus search_jobs or any exclusion condition, so it is clear context without alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Searches verified, currently open jobs for a job seeker in Argentina/LATAM by role, skills, location and work mode. Returns every strong match, up to 30, each with why it matches and the link to apply. A job's title must match one of the roles, so include the usual names for the same job. Use it when the user says what kind of job they want. Chatrabajo keeps an anonymous record of the roles, location and work mode searched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roles | Yes | Job titles the person wants plus the usual names for the same job, e.g. ["Product Designer", "UX Designer", "UI Designer", "UX/UI Designer"] or ["Asistente administrativa", "Auxiliar administrativo"] | |
| skills | No | Skills or tools, e.g. ["Excel", "Facturación"] or ["React", "TypeScript"] | |
| location | No | Where the person lives or wants to work, e.g. "Córdoba, Argentina". Defaults to Argentina. | |
| workMode | No | Only when the person states a preference | |
| newWithinDays | No | Only jobs Chatrabajo found in the last N days. Use 1 in a daily scheduled task, so each run shows only new jobs. Leave it out to get every open job | |
| requiredSkills | No | Only skills the person said are a must | |
| experienceLevel | No | Only when the person states a seniority. Leave it out to get every level | |
| excludedCompanies | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the bar is lower; the description adds useful behavior beyond them — result cap of 30, each match includes an explanation and an apply link, and an anonymous search record is kept. This is meaningful disclosure the annotations do not cover.
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?
Five sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then return shape, the key roles constraint, the usage trigger, and a privacy note. Every sentence carries information, though the privacy note and the return-format line could be tightened given an output schema exists.
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?
With 8 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the critical invocation constraint (role-title matching) and the primary usage trigger. The only omission is guidance on the undocumented excludedCompanies parameter and any explicit relation to the sibling tool.
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 88% (baseline 3), and the description still adds real semantics: 'A job's title must match one of the roles, so include the usual names for the same job,' which explains why the roles array should carry synonyms. It does not clarify excludedCompanies, the one param lacking a schema description.
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 and resource ('Searches verified, currently open jobs') plus the scope (Argentina/LATAM) and the dimensions searched (role, skills, location, work mode). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling match_jobs_to_cv, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
Gives a clear trigger: 'Use it when the user says what kind of job they want,' and implies the request should be role/title driven. It never names match_jobs_to_cv or states when not to use this tool, so the alternative-selection condition is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
match_jobs_to_cvsearch_jobs
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.