Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

goldseam

by com.ksaworks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Certifications for Occupation

certifications_for_occupation
Read-only

What certifications serve this occupation? SOC-keyed lookup (dashed SOC accepted with or without the O*NET .00 suffix).

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": {
      "soc": "<soc>"
    },
    "name": "certifications_for_occupation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
socYesAn occupation code (SOC), e.g. 29-1141 for Registered Nurses or 47-2111 for Electricians — don't know it? search by the job name instead
limitNoOptional page size (default 20, at most 50)
offsetNoOptional: the next_offset from a previous answer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional page size (default 20, at most 50)",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the next_offset from a previous answer",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / soc / description
      Previous value: -"SOC code, e.g. 13-2061 or 13-2061.00"New value: +"An occupation code (SOC), e.g. 29-1141 for Registered Nurses or 47-2111 for Electricians — don't know it? search by the job name instead"
    • addedInput schema / properties / soc / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "29-1141",
+  "47-2111"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds very little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation — it only mentions that input SOCKS can be dashed with or without an .00 suffix. It doesn't explain the tool's output behavior, pagination, rate limits, or potential failure modes, which the annotation set doesn't already cover.

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 two crisp clauses: a purpose question and the keying method with the format note. No filler, and the essential information is up front. It's a model of economical documentation.

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 single-required-parameter read lookup, the description is almost complete: it says what input key to use and implies the output is a list of certifications. A few more words about the response shape (element list, naming) might close the gap, but the tool name and question make that nearly self-evident.

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 schema description already defines what a SOC is and gives examples, so the description only needs a small addition. The note about the .00 suffix being optional is genuinely useful and not present in the schema definition, which adds real value for a user with a SOC code in either format.

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 is explicit: it asks what certifications serve an occupation and states the SOC-keyed lookup. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like certifications_for_program (which joins by program) and occupations_for_certification (reverse relationship), so there's no room to pick the wrong tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool should be used when the user has a SOC code, but it never states alternatives or when not to use it. The 'don't know it? search by the job name' guidance is in the input schema parameter, which is a structured field rather than description text, so the description itself leaves usage boundaries implicit.

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

All goldseam toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources