LaraBench
Server Details
Search Laravel jobs, remote roles, Laravel news, and package releases in real time.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct domain—jobs and news—with clear descriptions, leaving no ambiguity about which to use for a given query.
Both tools follow a consistent `search_laravel_<entity>` pattern, making the purpose immediately clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is minimal but still scoped to the server's stated purpose of searching Laravel jobs and news. It could benefit from additional tools for detail retrieval or filtering.
The tool surface covers the core search functionality for both domains, but lacks operations like browsing categories, saving results, or fetching full details, which might be needed for complete workflows.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_laravel_jobsSearch Laravel jobsARead-onlyInspect
Search recent Laravel jobs indexed by LaraBench. Results are limited to the last 7 days and link to LaraBench job pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of jobs to return. | |
| query | No | Free-text search across job title, company, and description. | |
| countries | No | Country or remote-region filters. | |
| locations | No | Location text filters. | |
| seniority | No | Seniority filters. | |
| technologies | No | Technology filters such as laravel, vue, inertia, livewire, or react. | |
| salaryMinimum | No | Minimum disclosed salary, in the currency given by salaryCurrency. | |
| salaryCurrency | No | Three-letter currency code (e.g. USD, EUR, GBP) to pair with salaryMinimum. | |
| employmentTypes | No | Employment type filters. | |
| workArrangement | No | Restrict results to a single work arrangement. Defaults to any. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| asOf | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| larabenchUrl | Yes | |
| totalAvailable | Yes | |
| freshnessWindowDays | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and no destructive effects. The description adds value by disclosing the 7-day time limit and external linking to LaraBench pages, which are behavioral traits not conveyed by annotations. However, it does not mention pagination or rate limits.
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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality, data source, time constraint, and output link destination. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given the 10 parameters with full schema descriptions and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description's brevity is acceptable. It captures the essential scope (recent, 7-day, external links). A slightly richer usage context could be beneficial, but it does not leave critical gaps.
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 100% with all 10 parameters having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The schema itself is well-described, so the tool definition is adequate without extra 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?
The description clearly states it searches recent Laravel jobs indexed by LaraBench, distinguishing it from the sibling 'search_laravel_news' by domain (jobs vs news). The verb 'Search' and resource 'Laravel jobs' are specific, and the time constraint 'last 7 days' adds precision.
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 usage for finding recent Laravel job listings. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling 'search_laravel_news' indicates a different tool for news. The extensive filter schema provides clear context for parameterized searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_laravel_newsSearch Laravel news and releasesARead-onlyInspect
Search recent Laravel ecosystem news and package releases indexed by LaraBench. Results are limited to the last 7 days and link to LaraBench news pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return. | |
| query | No | Free-text search across article and release titles and summaries. | |
| types | No | Restrict results to articles, package releases, or both. Defaults to both. | |
| topics | No | Topic filters such as laravel, php, vue, jobs, or packages. | |
| channel | No | Release channel to include. stable excludes prereleases, preview returns only prereleases, all returns both. Defaults to stable. | |
| sources | No | News source filters. | |
| packages | No | Composer or npm package filters. | |
| projects | No | Project filters such as laravel, inertia, livewire, filament, or pest. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | Article and release items are shaped differently; see the type field. |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| larabenchUrl | Yes | |
| totalAvailable | Yes | |
| freshnessWindowDays | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as read-only and non-destructive; description adds behavioral details (limited to last 7 days, links to LaraBench) that annotations do not cover. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant information. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given 8 optional parameters all described in schema, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. Lacks explicit mention of parameter interactions but schema handles details.
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. Description provides general context but adds no parameter-specific details beyond what schema already gives.
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?
Clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'Laravel ecosystem news and package releases'. Context of 'indexed by LaraBench' and time window differentiates from sibling 'search_laravel_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?
Description specifies scope ('recent', last 7 days) and destination (LaraBench pages). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling via different domain, but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!