Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

goldseam

by com.ksaworks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Crosswalk Code

crosswalk_code
Read-only

What does this code cross to? Auto-detects the family — dotted CIP (52.0201) or dashed SOC (11-1021, O*NET .00 suffix accepted) — and answers the other family's codes and titles from the federal CIP-SOC crosswalk.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "crosswalk_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesA college program code (CIP, e.g. 51.3801) or an occupation code (SOC, e.g. 29-1141)
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 / code / description
      Previous value: -"A CIP (52.0201) or SOC (11-1021) code"New value: +"A college program code (CIP, e.g. 51.3801) or an occupation code (SOC, e.g. 29-1141)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / code / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "51.3801",
+  "29-1141"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: auto-detection of code family based on format (dotted vs dashed), acceptance of O*NET .00 suffix, and that it returns both codes and titles. It doesn't discuss pagination or error handling, but the added format/detection context goes beyond annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with a direct question that captures the tool's purpose, followed by precise technical details. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only lookup tool, the description covers the essential aspects: input family detection, accepted formats, and output content (codes and titles). The limit/offset parameters are documented in the schema, and no output schema is needed. It could mention invalid code behavior or explicitly note pagination, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the code family format (dotted CIP vs dashed SOC) and the O*NET .00 suffix acceptance, which are not fully specified in the schema's parameter description. This extra semantic detail helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 the tool's function: it auto-detects whether the input is a CIP or SOC code and returns the corresponding codes and titles from the federal CIP-SOC crosswalk. It uses specific verbs ('cross', 'answers') and a clear resource ('federal CIP-SOC crosswalk'), distinguishing it from siblings like resolve_term or search_certifications.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you have a CIP or SOC code and need the other family's codes and titles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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