search_locationsResolve a free-text place name ("bay area", "Germany", "berlin") to the location identifiers search_jobs accepts (country-XX, state-XX-YY, city-XX-YY-name). Only places that appear in current job data are returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Place name fragment, minimum 2 characters. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it resolves to specific identifier formats and only returns places present in current job data. This is useful and does not contradict the read-only hint.
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 concise, with two sentences that pack essential information: purpose, examples, output format, and a limitation. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input, output identifier format, and data scope. It could add default/limit behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for invocation.
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?
The description clarifies the meaning of 'query' (free-text place name) and gives examples, complementing the schema. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and with 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
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 tool's purpose: resolving free-text place names to location identifiers accepted by search_jobs. It provides concrete examples and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming 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 when to use this tool (before search_jobs, to get location identifiers) and notes the limitation that only places in current job data are returned. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.