O*NET Occupational Data

get_occupation_wages

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`location`	No
`soc_code`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It transparently discloses the exact percentiles returned (median, 10th, 25th, 75th, 90th), both hourly and annual, and explains the location filter with a default of national. This is good for a read-only tool.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. The args list is clear and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, the filtering capability, and parameter semantics. There are no significant 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: soc_code with an example format, and location with accepted values ('state name or National') and default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 gets wage and salary estimates for an O*NET occupation, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_career_outlook (outlook data) and get_occupation_detail (details).

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 the tool is for retrieving wage data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention 'Use this for wage estimates, not for career outlook.'

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?