List companies
list_companiesRead-only
List every company JobYap tracks with its active job count. Use the exact names as search_jobs company filters.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
JobYap Job Search
by com.jobyap
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('every company JobYap tracks') and the output content ('active job count'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a practical usage note. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It specifies what is listed and the output includes active job count, and it explains how to use the results. It could mention ordering or limitations, but these are not essential for this level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params is a baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists every company JobYap tracks with its active job count, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'companies'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_jobs and search_locations by focusing on companies rather than jobs or locations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using the exact returned company names as filters for search_jobs, providing practical usage context. It implies when this tool is useful (to get company names for filtering) but does not explicitly delineate when to use this vs. alternatives, or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
There are two overlapping pairs: fetch vs get_job both retrieve job details, and search vs search_jobs both search listings. While the descriptions differentiate them (fetch for search result IDs, get_job for job IDs; search for natural language, search_jobs for structured filters), an agent could easily choose the wrong one without careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix conventions: bare verb 'fetch', 'get_' prefix on three tools, 'list_' prefix, and 'search_' prefix on three others. The pattern is not uniform, though each name does convey its purpose reasonably.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well within the ideal range for a job search server. Each tool covers a distinct facet (search, retrieval, comments, stats, companies, locations) and none feel redundant or extraneous.
Completeness4/5
The toolkit provides a complete read-only surface for the job search domain: searching, fetching full listings, comments, company list, and location resolution. Minor gaps like per-company detail beyond job count or a direct job-by-ID endpoint could exist, but the core workflow is covered well.