O*NET Occupational Data
Server Details
Job descriptions, skills, education requirements, and wage data
- 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 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_career_outlook focuses on employment projections, get_occupation_detail provides comprehensive occupation data, get_occupation_wages handles salary information, and search_occupations enables discovery. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making tool selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_career_outlook, get_occupation_detail, get_occupation_wages, search_occupations) with clear, descriptive nouns. The naming is uniform throughout, using snake_case and similar verb styles, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of providing occupational data. Each tool serves a unique and essential function—searching, retrieving details, wages, and outlook—without redundancy. This minimal yet complete set aligns perfectly with the domain's needs.
The tool set offers complete coverage for the O*NET occupational data domain: search_occupations enables discovery, get_occupation_detail provides core information, get_occupation_wages covers financial aspects, and get_career_outlook adds future projections. There are no obvious gaps, supporting a full workflow from search to detailed analysis.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_career_outlookAInspect
Get employment projections and career outlook for an O*NET occupation.
Returns projected job growth rate, employment numbers, projected openings,
and an outlook summary (bright, average, or below average).
Args:
soc_code: The O*NET-SOC code (e.g. '15-1252.00' for Software Developers).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soc_code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description compensates by disclosing return values (growth rate, openings) and explaining the categorical outlook values ('bright, average, or below average').
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?
Well-structured with clear Purpose/Returns/Args sections; front-loaded with the most critical selection signal (projections/outlook focus).
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?
Complete for a single-parameter tool; adequately explains the input format and output characteristics without needing to replicate the full output schema.
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 has 0% description coverage; description fully compensates with clear semantics ('O*NET-SOC code') and a concrete usage example ('15-1252.00').
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?
Specific verb 'Get' + clear resource 'employment projections and career outlook' distinctly positions it against siblings (wages vs. outlook vs. detail).
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?
Differentiation from siblings is implied by the specific focus on projections, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over occupation_detail or wages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_occupation_detailAInspect
Get detailed information about an O*NET occupation.
Returns comprehensive data including description, skills, knowledge areas,
abilities, work activities, technology skills, and education requirements.
Args:
soc_code: The O*NET-SOC code (e.g. '15-1252.00' for Software Developers,
'29-1141.00' for Registered Nurses).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soc_code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return behavior comprehensively (lists specific data categories returned), compensating for missing annotations, though lacks details on caching, rate limits, or data freshness.
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?
Appropriately brief and front-loaded; the Args section is structured and every sentence provides value without redundancy.
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?
Complete enough given the simple single-parameter input and existence of output schema; parameter examples and return value summary provide sufficient context 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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage by providing clear semantic meaning ('O*NET-SOC code') and concrete, contextualized examples ('15-1252.00' for Software Developers).
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?
States specific action (get detailed information) and resource (O*NET occupation), and the list of returned data fields implicitly distinguishes it from sibling wage/outlook tools.
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?
Provides implied usage guidance by listing comprehensive return data (skills, knowledge, etc.), but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements versus alternatives like search_occupations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_occupation_wagesAInspect
Get wage and salary estimates for an O*NET occupation.
Returns median, 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentile wages,
both hourly and annual. Can be filtered by location.
Args:
soc_code: The O*NET-SOC code (e.g. '15-1252.00' for Software Developers).
location: Optional location filter — state name or 'National' (default: national).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | ||
| soc_code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations are absent, description carries burden well by disclosing return structure (percentiles, hourly/annual breakdown) and filter behavior.
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?
Front-loaded purpose statement followed by concise Args section; 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?
Appropriately complete given simple 2-param schema and existence of output schema; minor gap in not referencing sibling search tool for code lookup.
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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage: provides detailed Arg descriptions with concrete example ('15-1252.00') and valid values for location.
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?
Clear specific purpose ('Get wage and salary estimates') but no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_occupation_detail.
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?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., get_occupation_detail) or prerequisites like obtaining soc_code from search_occupations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_occupationsAInspect
Search O*NET occupations by keyword.
Returns a list of occupations matching the keyword with their SOC codes,
titles, and relevance scores. Use the SOC code from results with other
O*NET tools to get detailed information.
Args:
keyword: Search term (e.g. 'software developer', 'nurse', 'electrician').
limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 25).| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| keyword | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description compensates by detailing return structure (SOC codes, titles, relevance scores) and noting default limit behavior.
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?
Extremely concise with no filler; front-loaded purpose followed by usage workflow and structured Args section.
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?
Adequately covers the simple 2-parameter search pattern and output summary; appropriately references sibling tools for full workflow context.
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 has 0% description coverage; description fully compensates with concrete examples ('software developer', 'nurse') and clear semantics for both parameters.
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?
States specific action (Search) and resource (O*NET occupations), and distinguishes from siblings by noting SOC codes are for use with 'other O*NET tools'.
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?
Provides clear workflow context (search first to get SOC codes for other tools) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' 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!