A
license-
qualityA
maintenanceEnables AI agents to discover, filter, and track job openings based on the user's local resume, without uploading data to the cloud.
6
MIT
Landed
Server Details
Search AI-native jobs, inspect application forms, and fetch free interview-prep resources.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- landedjobs/landed-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 3
- Server Listing
- Landed MCP Server
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search_jobs finds jobs, get_job_form retrieves application forms, and get_learning_content provides learning materials. No overlap between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: search_jobs, get_job_form, get_learning_content.
Tool Count4/5
With only 3 tools, the server feels slightly thin, but it is well-scoped for job search and preparation. The count is appropriate for a focused domain.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover job search, form retrieval, and learning content. Missing features like application submission or user profile management are not critical given the server's role as a preparation helper. Minor gaps exist.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_job_formGet job application formAInspect
Get the application form for a job (by the jobId returned from search_jobs), so you can prepare answers before the user applies. Fields are grouped: "standard" (auto-fillable from a candidate profile via mapsTo), "screening" (free-text questions to draft from the résumé/experience), and "eeo" (leave to the user). Always free — a job's form is only reachable once you've already found the job via search_jobs.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The jobId from a search_jobs result. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the grouping of fields ('standard', 'screening', 'eeo') and notes the form is 'Always free'. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the raw input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and then adds necessary details about field groups and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, and structure of the form. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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% for the single parameter jobId, with a clear description. The tool description adds only the context that jobId comes from search_jobs, which is helpful but not significantly beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the application form for a job (by the jobId returned from search_jobs)'. It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_jobs and get_learning_content.
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?
The description provides context on when to use the tool: 'so you can prepare answers before the user applies' and notes prerequisites ('only reachable once you've already found the job via search_jobs'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for a focused tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_learning_contentGet learning contentAInspect
Get Landed's free learning content to help the user prepare — curated interview-prep repos (real questions, company guides, worked system designs), portfolio-project catalogs, and role roadmaps from the landedjobs GitHub org. Filter by topic, role, and/or category. Always free, for any caller.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Target role, e.g. "AI Engineer", "AI PM", "GTM Engineer". | |
| topic | No | Free-text topic, e.g. "RAG", "system design", "evals". | |
| category | No | Restrict to one category of content. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must bear disclosure burden. It notes 'Always free, for any caller' suggesting no restrictions, but does not explicitly confirm read-only, side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Adds 'curated' but lacks complete behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded content types and filter guidance. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description should clarify return format (list vs. single) and pagination. It implies multiple items ('repos, catalogs, roadmaps') but not explicit. Lacks details on ordering, limits, or error handling.
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 has 100% parameter description coverage; description adds 'Filter by topic, role, and/or category' which mirrors schema info without additional semantics like combination behavior.
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?
Description clearly states tool returns 'Landed's free learning content' including specific types (interview-prep repos, portfolio-project catalogs, role roadmaps) from the landedjobs GitHub org, distinguishing it from sibling tools for job forms and job search.
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 states filtering by topic, role, and/or category, and implies use for learning content versus job-related siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_jobsSearch jobsAInspect
Search Landed's live job corpus for AI-native roles and get a ranked, fit-scored shortlist. Fill the structured fields (role, skills, work mode, physical locations, remote-eligibility countries/regions, seniority, comp, industries…) from the user's request — they drive the ranking. Physical locations are resolved to stable places; use ISO country codes and canonical region codes when known. You may also pass a free-text "query"; it's parsed into the same filters and used as a semantic nudge. Free tier: up to a shared budget of jobs for anonymous callers (each returned job counts). Authenticated callers (Authorization: Bearer ) get unlimited, brief-personalized results.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Target role or title family, e.g. "AI Engineer", "RAG Engineer", "Data Scientist". | |
| avoid | No | Companies or sectors to avoid. | |
| limit | No | How many jobs to return. | |
| query | No | Free-text description of the ideal job, in the user’s own words. Parsed server-side into structured filters; also used as a semantic nudge. | |
| remote | No | Work mode preference. | |
| skills | No | Core skills / technologies the role should involve, e.g. ["RAG", "LangChain", "Python"]. | |
| minComp | No | Minimum acceptable base compensation (numeric). | |
| regions | No | Legacy human-readable remote eligibility regions/countries, e.g. ["APAC", "India"]. Prefer regionCodes/countryCodes when known. | |
| currency | No | Currency for minComp, e.g. "USD". | |
| locations | No | Preferred physical cities/countries as exact labels; include country for ambiguous cities, e.g. ["Bengaluru, India", "London, UK"]. Resolved server-side to stable place IDs. | |
| seniority | No | Seniority target, e.g. "junior", "mid", "senior", "staff", "lead". | |
| industries | No | Preferred company industries / sectors. | |
| regionCodes | No | Canonical remote eligibility regions. | |
| countryCodes | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 countries where the job may be based or remotely eligible, e.g. ["IN"]. | |
| companyStages | No | Preferred company stages, e.g. ["seed", "series-a", "public"]. | |
| workAuthorizationCountryCodes | No | ISO country codes where the candidate is authorized to work. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ranking, fit-scoring, free-tier budget limits, and authenticated personalization. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or confirm read-only nature, which are important for a search tool. Some behavioral context is given but gaps remain.
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?
The description is concise (~150 words) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including instructions on filling fields and tier differences. Minor redundancy exists but overall efficient.
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?
Given the complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: ranking, fit-scoring, field filling, location resolution, free-text parsing, and tier differences. It adequately supports an AI agent in understanding tool usage, though return format details are omitted but acceptable for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining that structured fields drive ranking, physical locations are resolved to stable places, and free-text query is parsed into same filters and used as a semantic nudge. This contextual meaning goes beyond the individual schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches Landed's live job corpus for AI-native roles and returns a ranked, fit-scored shortlist. It uses a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Landed's live job corpus'), and result type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_form and get_learning_content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user wants to find AI-native jobs, and mentions filling structured fields and using free-text query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, such as using get_job_form for a specific job's application form. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to pull live job listings from major ATS platforms (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workable), Hacker News hiring threads, and detect hiring signals on company career pages.
- Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables Claude to search AI/ML jobs across Greenhouse, Lever, and Adzuna, with resume tailoring and referral outreach assistance.5
FoundRole MCPofficial
AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search live jobs, view full details, save and track applications in a Kanban board, set follow-up reminders, and subscribe to job alerts—no account needed for searching.2094MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.