O*NET Occupational Data

search_occupations

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`keyword`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (SOC codes, titles, relevance scores) and the integration point. It doesn't mention edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured with an Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the purpose, output, parameter semantics, and how to use results downstream. The presence of an output schema means detailed return structure is not needed in the description.

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 schema has no descriptions, and the description provides clear explanations for both keyword and limit, including examples and defaults. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches O*NET occupations by keyword, returning a list with SOC codes, titles, and relevance scores. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific occupation details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the workflow: search to get SOC codes, then use other O*NET tools with those codes. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?