Search Laravel jobs, remote roles, Laravel news, and package releases in real time.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are completely distinct: one searches Laravel jobs, the other searches Laravel news. There is no overlap in purpose or result types, leaving no ambiguity.
Both tools follow the exact same verb_noun pattern: search_laravel_jobs and search_laravel_news. Naming is perfectly consistent and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but each tool clearly justifies its existence given the narrow domain of Laravel jobs and news. It feels slightly thin but is appropriately scoped for the stated purpose.
The server's purpose is to search two specific content types, and both are fully covered with comprehensive result details. No obvious gaps exist for the intended workflow.
search_laravel_jobsSearch Laravel jobsASearch recent Laravel jobs indexed by LaraBench, including full description, salary, seniority, and employment type. Results are limited to the last 30 days. Each job carries a LaraBench detail page and, when the source published one, the original apply URL.
| 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. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| asOf | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| larabenchUrl | Yes | |
| totalAvailable | Yes | |
| freshnessWindowDays | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to the last 30 days, and each job includes a LaraBench detail page plus an original apply URL when available. This gives the agent a clearer picture of result freshness and content.
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 only three sentences long, with the purpose in the first sentence and additional constraints in the next two. Every sentence provides useful information: the resource and result fields, the 30-day time limit, and the links. No wasted words.
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 tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, the 30-day recency limit, and key result attributes. It omits details like pagination or default sorting, but these are likely covered by the output schema or are not critical for basic selection.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described in its own 'description' field. The main tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics or clarify usage beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('Search'), the resource ('recent Laravel jobs indexed by LaraBench'), and the scope of results including description, salary, seniority, and employment type. This explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_laravel_news' by focusing on jobs rather than news.
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 makes it clear when to use this tool (to search Laravel jobs) and indirectly contrasts with the sibling tool for news. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention the alternative by name, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.
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 releasesASearch recent Laravel ecosystem news and package releases indexed by LaraBench. Results are limited to the last 7 days. Each item carries a LaraBench detail page and the original article or release notes URL.
| 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. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | Article and release items are shaped differently; see the type field. |
| generatedAt | Yes | |
| larabenchUrl | Yes | |
| totalAvailable | Yes | |
| freshnessWindowDays | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: results are limited to the last 7 days, and each item includes a LaraBench detail page and original article/release URL. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the key constraint (7-day window) and result details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.
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 presence of a rich output schema, complete input schema documentation, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the search scope, time limit, and result content, making the tool fully usable without additional documentation.
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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all eight optional parameters, so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource: recent Laravel ecosystem news and package releases indexed by LaraBench. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_laravel_jobs by focusing on news/releases rather than 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 clearly defines its scope (recent Laravel news and package releases within the last 7 days), which implicitly tells the agent when to use it versus the jobs-focused sibling. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
