Corvi Careers
Server Details
Search remote and onsite jobs through the public Corvi Careers MCP server.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- jobswithgpt/mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.8/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: categories, locations, companies (single and batch), and job search. No overlap in functionality.
Verb patterns are inconsistent: list, autocomplete, lookup, search. While readable, the mix of verb_noun and noun_verb reduces predictability.
5 tools is well-scoped for a job search domain, covering essential lookups and search without unnecessary bloat.
Covers key components (categories, locations, companies, search). Minor gap: no dedicated tool for individual job details, but search_jobs may suffice.
Available Tools
5 toolslist_categoriesBInspect
List valid job categories and hierarchy tokens for category-filtered searches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists categories and tokens, but omits details such as whether the output is paginated, how the 'query' and 'limit' parameters affect results, or any authentication requirements. An output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal listing action.
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 with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices clarity by omitting important parameter and behavioral details. It is appropriately front-loaded but under-informative for its brevity.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the parameters, provide usage context relative to siblings, or describe output structure (despite an output schema being present). The agent cannot fully understand how to invoke or interpret results based solely on this description.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'limit' or 'query' parameters. It does not add any meaning beyond the input schema's type and default values. For a tool with 2 optional parameters, this is a critical gap.
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 that the tool lists valid job categories and hierarchy tokens and explicitly ties this to category-filtered searches. The verb "List" and resource "valid job categories and hierarchy tokens" are specific and unambiguous. Among sibling tools (location_autocomplete, lookup_companies, search_jobs), this tool is distinct in purpose.
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 usage for obtaining categories to filter search_jobs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. It offers implicit usage context but no exclusions or alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
location_autocompleteCInspect
Autocomplete locations from the local /location-autocomplete/ API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| min_population | No | ||
| include_country | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only mentions the API endpoint. It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, latency, or any side effects. The tool's behavior is opaque.
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 one short sentence, which is concise but too brief to fully inform the agent. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices valuable details.
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?
Given the schema has 4 parameters with no descriptions and an output schema exists, the description does not address return values, pagination, or how to interpret results. It is critically incomplete for effective use.
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 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description does not explain any parameter. The agent has no context for 'limit', 'min_population', 'include_country', or 'query'.
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 states 'Autocomplete locations from the local /location-autocomplete/ API.' which clearly indicates the tool's verb (autocomplete) and resource (locations), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_jobs'. However, it lacks detail on what 'autocomplete' entails.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_jobs'. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_companiesBInspect
Lookup valid company names before using the search_jobs companies filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Only states 'lookup valid company names' without details on behavior like autocomplete, rate limits, or what constitutes 'valid'. Output schema exists but isn't referenced.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. However, overly terse leaves gaps.
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?
Provides essential usage context (before search_jobs) but lacks parameter details despite output schema. Annotations absent, leaving behavioral gaps.
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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (query, limit). Agent must infer behavior from names alone.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'lookup' and the resource 'valid company names' and explicitly ties its usage to the search_jobs tool's companies filter, distinguishing it from 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?
Explicitly says 'before using the search_jobs companies filter', giving clear context for when to use this tool. No explicit when-not, but the purpose implies it's a preparatory step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_companies_batchBInspect
Lookup valid company names for multiple company queries in one MCP call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| queries | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'lookup valid company names'. No behavioral traits like cost, rate limits, idempotency, or safety disclosed.
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?
Single sentence is efficient and conveys the core batch purpose, but could be slightly more structured with parameter hints.
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?
Despite output schema existence, the description lacks essential context for a batch tool (e.g., batch size limits, concurrency). Incomplete for effective agent use.
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 0% and description does not explain 'queries' format or 'limit' purpose. Fails to add meaning beyond the schema names.
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 tool does batch lookup of company names, contrasting with the sibling lookup_companies by noting 'multiple company queries in one MCP call'.
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?
Implies batch usage for multiple queries but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like lookup_companies. No exclusion criteria given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_jobsCInspect
Search jobs without server-side query rewriting, then flatten grouped results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| titles | No | ||
| recency | No | ||
| distance | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| companies | No | ||
| job_types | No | ||
| locations | No | ||
| geonameids | No | ||
| job_levels | No | ||
| category_slugs | No | ||
| negative_keywords | No | ||
| category_hierarchy | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions using a local API and flattening results, but doesn't disclose side effects, performance implications, or any limitations. Incomplete for a search tool.
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 only one sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 15 parameters. It lacks front-loaded critical information. Not effective use of space.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover the search functionality adequately. Missing details about filter usage and result format. Not complete for a complex search tool.
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 0%, and the description adds no information about the 15 parameters. It does not explain query, filters, or pagination. Meaningful parameter support is entirely missing.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'jobs', and mentions the internal API endpoint. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'location_autocomplete' which deals with locations.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!