Search 13,000+ remote/hybrid jobs in Germany/EU, open a posting, get market stats. Free, no auth.
Scored across 3 tools
get_job (single posting by id), search_jobs (query the board), and get_job_statistics (aggregate counts) target clearly distinct purposes with no overlap. An agent can trivially pick the right one for retrieval, discovery, or metrics.
All names are snake_case verb_noun (get_job, get_job_statistics, search_jobs), which is predictable. The only deviation is the get_ vs search_ prefix pair, but that reflects genuinely different actions rather than inconsistency.
Three tools is on the low end but well-matched to a read-only job board: fetch, search, and aggregate stats. Nothing feels redundant, though there is little slack for additional read affordances.
For a read-only domain, search (with rich filters/cursors), single-posting retrieval, and statistics cover the core lifecycle. Gaps like company/source browse endpoints are largely subsumed by search filters, so agents have few dead ends.
Fetch ONE nomado24 job posting by id, with the complete v2 payload: the posting body where the source permits redistribution, per-field provenance (dataOrigin: who asserted each field, by which method, when), salaryOrigin, firstSeenAt, lastVerifiedAt with its verification method, and updatedAt (the last genuine content change). Returns an error result for an id that is not a live posting; expired and withdrawn postings are not served. Read-only, free, attribution required (see structuredContent.attribution).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job id as returned by search_jobs ('job_<slug>'). A bare slug is also accepted |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavior beyond annotations: expired and withdrawn postings are not served, non-live ids return an error result, and read-only/free/attribution requirements are stated. It also mentions the source-permission caveat and the verification method for lastVerifiedAt.
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 front-loaded with the action and object, and every clause carries needed caveats or payload fields. It is dense but not padded, and the length is justified by the absence of an output schema.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the return payload fields, error behavior for non-live ids, and attribution location. No significant gap remains for invocation or result interpretation.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameter semantics via the id description ('job_<slug>', bare slug also accepted). The description only restates that the id selects one posting and adds no syntax or format detail 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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('ONE nomado24 job posting by id') and enumerates what the complete v2 payload contains. The by-id retrieval is clearly distinct from search_jobs and get_job_statistics.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single known posting rather than searching or fetching statistics, and the schema notes ids come from search_jobs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get aggregate statistics (active jobs, new-this-week/month, top sources, salary ranges) for nomado24's remote-jobs board. No input required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds useful context by listing the statistics categories returned, but it does not disclose details like data freshness, possible overlap between new-this-week and new-this-month counts, or the response shape.
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?
One front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource come first, followed by a compact parenthetical list of statistics types and a short input note. Every word earns its place and nothing repeats the title or the schema.
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 0-parameter, read-only statistics endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and that no input is needed. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance between this tool and search_jobs, though the aggregate-vs-search contrast is reasonably evident.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the schema to document. The description reinforces this with 'No input required,' which is exactly the right semantic signal for a no-parameter tool, justifying the baseline-4 score.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get aggregate statistics... for nomado24's remote-jobs board') and enumerates exactly what is included (active jobs, new-this-week/month, top sources, salary ranges). The aggregate-stats framing clearly separates it from get_job (single job) and search_jobs (search), though it does so implicitly rather than by naming the siblings.
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 only usage guidance is 'No input required,' which correctly tells the agent that no parameters are needed. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose board-level statistics over search_jobs or get_job; the agent must infer the intent solely from the word 'aggregate.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search nomado24's remote/hybrid job board. Read-only, free, attribution required (see structuredContent.attribution). Answers over one of two contracts, chosen by the arguments you send. Send only q/language/page/per_page and you get the legacy v1 result shape with page-based paging. Send any structured filter (country, applicant_region, work_arrangement, employment_type, seniority, skills, salary_min/max, published_after, verified_after, source, company, sort, include_total) or a cursor and you get the v2 contract: richer job objects, per-posting provenance (salaryOrigin, firstSeenAt, lastVerifiedAt, verification.method, updatedAt), a corpus changeWatermark, a snapshotId and keyset paging via pagination.nextCursor. The two are mutually exclusive: page plus a structured filter is refused rather than silently resolved. Structured results omit the posting body and the per-field dataOrigin to stay cheap to read; call get_job for those. A filter nomado24 cannot answer honestly is refused with the reason, never answered with the unfiltered corpus. Structured pagination.total is currently null (totalRelation 'not_computed') for every query, because a current-text on-site-only serving gate cannot be counted accurately by the database. A null total is deliberate, not an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free-text search over job title/company/tags | |
| page | No | 1-based page number, default 1 | |
| sort | No | One of published_desc, verified_desc, salary_asc, salary_desc. Default published_desc | |
| cursor | No | Continuation cursor from pagination.nextCursor. Send it ALONE (with per_page at most), never alongside filters: the cursor already carries the filter set it traverses | |
| skills | No | Skill slugs, lowercase kebab-case (react, node-js) | |
| source | No | Feed/source ids, lowercase kebab-case | |
| company | No | Company name, exact match, case-insensitive. Aggregated postings carry no verified employer identity | |
| country | No | Where the ROLE sits, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 uppercase (DE, US) | |
| language | No | Filter by job content language | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, 1-25, default 20 | |
| seniority | No | Seniority. 'unknown' means the field is absent in the response, not a stored value | |
| salary_max | No | Upper bound in normalized ANNUAL EUR (gross) | |
| salary_min | No | Lower bound in normalized ANNUAL EUR (gross). Matches jobs whose salary interval overlaps it | |
| skills_match | No | How to combine skills. Requires skills | |
| include_total | No | Requested total mode (none, estimated, exact). Totals are currently withheld for every structured search: a current-text on-site-only serving gate is not visible to the database count, even without a named filter. The response reports total: null and totalRelation: 'not_computed' for all three modes. | |
| verified_after | No | RFC 3339 date-time. Compares against the SAME value the response reports as lastVerifiedAt | |
| employment_type | No | Employment type. 'unknown' means the field is absent in the response, not a stored value | |
| published_after | No | RFC 3339 date-time, e.g. 2026-08-01T00:00:00Z | |
| salary_currency | No | ISO 4217. Only EUR: every salary is normalized to EUR at ingest and no conversion is performed | |
| applicant_region | No | Where a CANDIDATE may be: WORLDWIDE, EU or an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. EEA/DACH/EMEA are refused, nomado24 does not classify them | |
| work_arrangement | No | Work arrangement. The board serves remote and hybrid postings only, so these are the only two values |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: attribution is required, refusals are explicit and reasoned, structured results deliberately omit body and dataOrigin, and pagination.total is intentionally null ('not an error'). These are behaviors an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.
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?
Front-loaded and dense but justified for a 21-parameter dual-contract tool; every clause carries routing or caveat information. Slight deduction because the null-total explanation is repeated almost verbatim in the include_total schema description and again in the description's closing sentence.
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?
With no output schema, 21 params and dual-contract behavior, the description still covers contract selection, paging mechanics (page vs cursor), field omissions, refusal semantics, and the deliberate null total. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: it groups the 21 params into two mutually exclusive contracts and explains the page-plus-filter refusal rule. It does not restate individual param formats, but the contract-level semantics are the important addition.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search nomado24's remote/hybrid job board') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_job by naming what get_job is needed for (posting body, per-field dataOrigin). An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and when a sibling is required.
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?
Gives explicit routing rules: which argument sets select the v1 vs v2 contract, that the two are mutually exclusive and refused rather than silently resolved, that cursor must travel alone, and that unanswerable filters are refused rather than degraded. This is a genuinely complete when/how-to-call guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
search_jobs1 field changedInput schema / properties / include_total / descriptionPrevious value: -"Whether to compute a total. 'exact' returns a number only when the database saw the whole predicate. With a post-projection filter active (skills, seniority, salary_min/salary_max, employment_type=unknown) the total is withheld: total is null and totalRelation is 'not_computed', because the base count would answer a different question than the one asked. Only at the count ceiling does 'exact' downgrade to 'estimated'."New value: +"Requested total mode (none, estimated, exact). Totals are currently withheld for every structured search: a current-text on-site-only serving gate is not visible to the database count, even without a named filter. The response reports total: null and totalRelation: 'not_computed' for all three modes."search_jobs4 fields changedInput schema / properties / include_total / descriptionPrevious value: -"Whether to compute a total. 'exact' downgrades itself to 'estimated' when a post-projection filter is active or the count ceiling is hit"New value: +"Whether to compute a total. 'exact' returns a number only when the database saw the whole predicate. With a post-projection filter active (skills, seniority, salary_min/salary_max, employment_type=unknown) the total is withheld: total is null and totalRelation is 'not_computed', because the base count would answer a different question than the one asked. Only at the count ceiling does 'exact' downgrade to 'estimated'."Input schema / properties / work_arrangement / descriptionPrevious value: -"Work arrangement. 'unknown' means the field is absent in the response, not a stored value"New value: +"Work arrangement. The board serves remote and hybrid postings only, so these are the only two values"Input schema / properties / work_arrangement / items / enumPrevious value: -[
- "remote",
- "hybrid",
- "remote_optional",
- "unknown"
-]New value: +[
+ "remote",
+ "hybrid"
+]Input schema / properties / work_arrangement / maxItemsPrevious value: -4New value: +2get_jobsearch_jobs17 fields changedInput schema / properties / applicant_regionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Where a CANDIDATE may be: WORLDWIDE, EU or an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. EEA/DACH/EMEA are refused, nomado24 does not classify them",
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 16,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / companyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Company name, exact match, case-insensitive. Aggregated postings carry no verified employer identity",
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 10,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / countryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Where the ROLE sits, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 uppercase (DE, US)",
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 8,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Continuation cursor from pagination.nextCursor. Send it ALONE (with per_page at most), never alongside filters: the cursor already carries the filter set it traverses",
+ "maxLength": 4096,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / employment_typeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Employment type. 'unknown' means the field is absent in the response, not a stored value",
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "full_time",
+ "part_time",
+ "contract",
+ "freelance",
+ "temporary",
+ "internship",
+ "working_student",
+ "apprenticeship",
+ "minijob",
+ "volunteer",
+ "other",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 12,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / include_totalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Whether to compute a total. 'exact' downgrades itself to 'estimated' when a post-projection filter is active or the count ceiling is hit",
+ "enum": [
+ "none",
+ "estimated",
+ "exact"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / published_afterAdded value: +{
+ "description": "RFC 3339 date-time, e.g. 2026-08-01T00:00:00Z",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / salary_currencyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "ISO 4217. Only EUR: every salary is normalized to EUR at ingest and no conversion is performed",
+ "maxLength": 8,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / salary_maxAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Upper bound in normalized ANNUAL EUR (gross)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / salary_minAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Lower bound in normalized ANNUAL EUR (gross). Matches jobs whose salary interval overlaps it",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / seniorityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Seniority. 'unknown' means the field is absent in the response, not a stored value",
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "student",
+ "entry",
+ "junior",
+ "mid",
+ "senior",
+ "lead",
+ "manager",
+ "director",
+ "executive",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 10,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / skillsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Skill slugs, lowercase kebab-case (react, node-js)",
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / skills_matchAdded value: +{
+ "description": "How to combine skills. Requires skills",
+ "enum": [
+ "any",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sortAdded value: +{
+ "description": "One of published_desc, verified_desc, salary_asc, salary_desc. Default published_desc",
+ "maxLength": 32,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sourceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Feed/source ids, lowercase kebab-case",
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 20,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / verified_afterAdded value: +{
+ "description": "RFC 3339 date-time. Compares against the SAME value the response reports as lastVerifiedAt",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / work_arrangementAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Work arrangement. 'unknown' means the field is absent in the response, not a stored value",
+ "items": {
+ "enum": [
+ "remote",
+ "hybrid",
+ "remote_optional",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 4,
+ "type": "array"
+}search_jobs1 field changedInput schema / properties / per_page / maximumPrevious value: -9007199254740991New value: +25get_job_statisticssearch_jobsSearch remote jobs from company career pages by title, location, seniority, salary, and tech stack.
Search remote jobs, compare salaries, create alerts, and request user-confirmed apply links.
Search live remote jobs worldwide. Job search, remote salary bands, work-from-anywhere eligibility.
Live jobs from Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workable, Recruitee and Teamtailor, with normalised salary.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
