Skip to main content
Glama

Reqbeat Hiring Signals

who_is_hiring_for

WHEN an agent needs to FIND the companies worth working -- the sourcing step, before it knows which companies exist. Reverse who's-hiring-for {role, geo} search: companies with active reqs matching role/geo/since, deduped by company, keyset-paginated via cursor. role is free text matched against the posting title, not an id. geo is resolved to a stored country before matching; an unresolvable one is an explicit error, never a quietly partial page. limit is bounded -- page through the full set with cursor instead of raising it. Billed per company returned (~0.10 USD each) -- an empty result bills nothing. role="backend engineer", geo="USA" -> the companies with matching active reqs, each with its pulse and its matched reqs. geo="Atlantis" -> an explicit unresolvable-country error rather than an empty page. No key yet? On the hosted HTTP endpoint the first calls are free: pass plane_api_key as an empty string and the search runs on a shared demo credential -- a smaller page, billed to nobody -- until a per-IP limit is reached, after which the answer becomes a signup link whose minted key finishes this exact search. On any other transport a blank key answers with that signup link straight away. Already holding a company_id and only need a yes/no? Use is_hiring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
geoNo
roleNo
limitNo
sinceNo
cursorNo
plane_api_keyNo
idempotency_keyNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: deduped by company, keyset-paginated, role as free text, geo resolution with explicit error for unresolvable, bounded limit, billing per company, and demo key mode. It also explicitly contrasts with is_hiring.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive and well-structured, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, parameters, billing, errors, and alternatives. Could be tightened slightly but still effective.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, error cases, billing, and demo mode. It lacks explicit output structure but gives an example result. Almost complete for the tool's complexity.

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 explains all 7 parameters: role (free text), geo (resolved to country), limit (bounded), cursor (pagination), since (date-time), plane_api_key (demo usage), and idempotency_key. It adds meaning beyond the 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 that the tool is for finding companies hiring for a role/geo, distinguishing it from the sibling 'is_hiring' which is for a known company. It specifies the sourcing step and uses specific verbs like 'FIND' and 'Reverse who's-hiring-for search'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use ('before it knows which companies exist') and when not to ('Already holding a company_id... use is_hiring'). It also clarifies billing and demo key behavior, providing full usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., get_changes/get_open_reqs/get_role all retrieve job-related data with pagination; hiring_pulse and pre_action_brief share nearly identical descriptions; is_hiring and hiring_pulse both assess company hiring status). The long, verbose descriptions provide some subtle differentiators but the functional boundaries are unclear.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming patterns are highly inconsistent: some tools use 'get_' prefixes (get_changes, get_open_reqs, get_role), others are noun phrases (hiring_pulse, is_hiring, pre_action_brief) or verb phrases (register_webhook, watch_company, write_outcome). There is no uniform verb-object or resource-based convention, making it hard to predict functionality from names.

Tool Count3/5

The server has 11 tools, which falls within the typical 3-15 range for a domain-specific API. However, several tools appear to serve redundant or narrowly-overlapping purposes (e.g., at least five tools deal with fetching job/company data), suggesting the count could be pruned without losing core functionality.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like searching jobs, retrieving role details, checking hiring status, registering webhooks, and writing outcomes. However, there are notable gaps: no webhook management (e.g., list/unregister), no explicit company profile retrieval, and no update/delete operations. This makes the surface feel incomplete for a comprehensive hiring-signals API.

Resources