SiteCheck Jobs & Property

Tech job listings from Dice for a keyword and optional

jobs_dice

Read-only

Tech job listings from Dice (US) for a keyword and optional location: title, company, location, how long ago it was posted, employment type (full-time, contract...), salary text as posted, and job URL, about 20 per page, plus the total number of matching jobs. Optional remote-only filter. Related tools on this server, for a different need: jobs_xing when you need job listings from XING for a keyword and optional location; jobs_bayt when you need Bayt.com job search for the Middle East and North Africa. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "jobs_dice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Keyword, e.g. python, data engineer (required)
`page`	No	Results page 1 to 50 (default 1)
`remote`	No	true for remote jobs only
`location`	No	Optional city or state, e.g. Austin, TX

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`jobs`	No
`page`	No
`count`	No
`total`	No
`remote`	No
`source`	No
`location`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true) and reach (openWorldHint=true), but the description adds material context they don't: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC with the payment rail, and the fact that failed calls are not charged. That cost/charging behavior is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs before invoking a metered tool, though nothing is said about rate limits or result staleness.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded well: the tool's identity and scope arrive in the first clause. However, the whole thing is a single run-on sentence that repeats 'for a keyword and optional location' for Dice, XING and Bayt alike, and spends ~30 words on sibling descriptions that could be a short list, which dilutes the payout detail buried at the end.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return shapes, and annotations carry the safety profile; what remains for the description is scope, pagination, cost and alternatives, all of which are present. Minor gaps are the absence of rate-limit, freshness, or empty-result context for a metered paginated search.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the four parameters are already fully documented, and the description mostly restates them. It does add one useful detail the schema lacks — roughly 20 results per page — which clarifies what 'page' actually controls, but it adds no syntax or format guidance for the remote or location flags beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (Tech job listings from Dice) and pins the scope to the US market, then enumerates the returned fields and page size. Against a sibling list containing dozens of job boards, the regional scoping plus the explicit sibling calls make it easy to tell this apart from jobs_xing or jobs_bayt without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to two named alternatives with the condition that selects each ('jobs_xing when you need job listings from XING', 'jobs_bayt when you need Bayt.com ... Middle East and North Africa'). What's missing is any negative guidance about when NOT to use this tool (e.g. non-US searches, non-tech roles), so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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

All SiteCheck Jobs & Property tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?