SiteCheck Jobs & Property

Jobs listed on Internshala's public /jobs/ page, read

jobs_internshala

Read-only

Jobs listed on Internshala's public /jobs/ page, read from the schema.org ItemList the page embeds: job title and detail-page link, in page order. The list gives only titles and links; company, location and pay are not in it, so they are not returned. Related tools on this server, for a different need: jobs_infojobs when you need newest offers on InfoJobs' public Spanish job list page; jobs_governmentjobs when you need US public-sector job postings from GovernmentJobs.com. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jobs_internshala"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many jobs, 1 to 50 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobs`	No
`count`	No
`total`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: it discloses that results come from an embedded ItemList, follow page order, and omit company, location, and pay — the single most important behavioral caveat for a listing tool. It also states pricing ($0.002 USDC via x402, Base/Solana/Arc) and that failed calls are not charged, which annotations never cover.

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-loads the source and payload, then caveats, then alternatives, then price — a sensible order. However the pricing sentence is verbose with payment-chain detail, and the schema.org ItemList mechanism is more implementation detail than agent-facing signal.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: source, returned fields, ordering, exclusions, and cost are all stated. Only the negative guidance (when to prefer a richer board) is left implicit.

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%, and the schema already documents limit with its 1–50 range and default of 10; the description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden entirely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: reads job titles and detail-page links from Internshala's public /jobs/ page via the schema.org ItemList. It clearly scopes what is returned (titles and links only) and explicitly names two sibling tools for other job boards. It stops short of 5 only because the distinction rests on source site rather than a task difference.

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?

Names two alternatives (jobs_infojobs for Spanish InfoJobs listings, jobs_governmentjobs for US public-sector postings) and the condition selecting each. What's missing is an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool, e.g., when company or location data is needed the agent should pick a richer board instead.

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?