computrabajo-jobsSearch Computrabajo (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Peru) by keyword and get public job listings: title, company, location, URL, posted-when. — $0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | List of "cc:query" strings, e.g. "mx:ventas", "co:desarrollador". Supported cc: mx, co, cl, ar, pe. | |
| maxConcurrency | No | How many queries to process in parallel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds cost per call and the exact output fields (title, company, location, URL, posted-when), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the cost disclosure is valuable.
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?
The description is a single sentence plus a cost note, with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action, scope, and output, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, scope, output fields, and cost. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or error handling, but the schema's maxItems and prefill provide additional context. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the supported country codes and re-emphasizes the query format, but this largely echoes the schema's description and prefill. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'Computrabajo job listings', and scope (5 LatAm countries). It lists the output fields, making the purpose unambiguous. The tool name itself is specific to a platform, naturally distinguishing it from siblings like 'job-postings-aggregator' or 'xing-jobs'.
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?
The description explicitly lists the countries and mentions keyword search, which implies the intended use case. It does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or contrast with sibling tools, but the specificity of the platform and region makes the context clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, with over a dozen real-estate scrapers and half a dozen job boards differentiated only by geography. While descriptions are clear, an agent would struggle to pick the correct tool without prior knowledge of the specific site or region, leading to frequent misselection.
Tool names use a mix of lowercase-hyphenated (boss-az, clinical-trials-monitor), underscore (pricing_info), and long descriptive phrases (official-gazette-regulatory-action-router). No consistent verb_noun pattern exists; some start with source domains, others with action nouns. This lack of predictability makes navigation confusing.
36 tools is on the heavy side for a server that could have been more focused. While a 'data hub' can justify many endpoints, the high number of near-identical scrapers (12+ real estate, 6+ job boards) suggests bloat rather than well-scoped functionality. A leaner set with parameterized regional filters would be more appropriate.
The claimed domain 'Market and Regulatory Data Feeds' is poorly served: there are no stock/forex/commodity price feeds, few global regulatory sources (only FDA, SEC, EU tenders), and many tools are for job and property listings which are tangential. The set feels like a random aggregation rather than a coherent surface, with obvious gaps for core market and regulatory data.