O*NET Occupational Data

get_occupation_detail

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`soc_code`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly lists what data will be returned, but it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any potential errors, permission requirements, or limitations. The getter semantics are implied but not stated.

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 concise and well-structured: an opening purpose statement, a sentence enumerating returned content categories, and an Args block with parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential input semantics and high-level return content. It could additionally note that invalid codes may cause errors or that search_occupations can help locate codes, but these are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides no description for soc_code (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter meaning, giving the format, and providing real-world examples like '15-1252.00' for Software Developers and '29-1141.00' for Registered Nurses, making the parameter usage unambiguous.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about an O*NET occupation.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_career_outlook and get_occupation_wages by focusing on comprehensive occupation detail rather than specific facets.

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 usage when comprehensive occupation data is needed, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use alternatives such as search_occupations for finding codes or get_occupation_wages for salary data. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so the guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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

All O*NET Occupational Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of occupational data: search, details, wages, and outlook. There is no overlap in purpose; even the three 'get_' tools are clearly differentiated by the data they return.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'search_occupations' and 'get_' prefixed tools. The verbs are clear and the nouns describe the resource or data type, making the pattern predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With exactly 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for an occupational data server. Each tool serves a core need, and there is no redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of occupational data exploration: search to find occupations, then retrieve details, wages, and outlook. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?