SiteCheck Jobs & Property

Newest remote job postings from We Work Remotely's public

jobs_weworkremotely

Read-only

Newest remote job postings from We Work Remotely's public RSS feed: title, company (from the title), region, category, job type, link, publish time. The feed has no salary field. Related tools on this server, for a different need: jobs_jobspresso when you need newest remote jobs from Jobspresso's public job feed; jobs_wantedly when you need newest job postings from Wantedly's public projects API. 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_weworkremotely"
  }
}

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
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds real value on top: the data is an RSS feed, there is no salary field (a caveat that prevents false expectations), company is parsed from the title, and calls cost $0.002 USDC via x402 with failures uncharged. Pagination/ordering beyond 'newest' and any rate limits are not discussed.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then the alternative sources, then pricing — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The middle clause is somewhat list-like and the sibling routing could be tightened, but every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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 need not define return shapes; it covers source, scope, data gaps, alternatives, and payment mechanics for a one-parameter read-only tool. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on ordering/paging semantics of 'newest' given the 50-item cap.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter ('limit', 1 to 50, default 10), so the schema already carries the full meaning. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter, which is acceptable here but gives no bonus — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Newest remote job postings from We Work Remotely's public RSS feed' — and enumerates exactly which fields come back (title, company, region, category, job type, link, publish time). It also names the two nearest siblings (jobs_jobspresso, jobs_wantedly) and the differing source, so an agent can distinguish sources without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing conditions for two alternatives: use jobs_jobspresso for Jobspresso's feed and jobs_wantedly for Wantedly's API, implying this tool is for the We Work Remotely RSS source. It never states when-not to use it (e.g., versus a full We Work Remotely search tool or paging beyond the newest items), so it stops just short of complete routing guidance.

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?