Skip to main content
Glama

Serpapi

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Serpapi Google Jobs

serpapi_google_jobs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Google Jobs for <query> — returns title, company, location, source, posted date, schedule, description, and apply link via SerpApi. Example: serpapi_google_jobs({ q: "data engineer", location: "Austin, TX", _apiKey: "your-serpapi-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesJob search query, e.g. "data engineer", "barista part time"
_apiKeyYesSerpApi API key (get one at serpapi.com)
locationNoOptional location, e.g. "Austin, TX", "London, United Kingdom"

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it requires an API key and returns specific fields. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences plus an example. No wasted words; the information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but the description lists return fields. Lacks mention of pagination or errors, but for a simple search tool this is acceptable.

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 parameters are already documented. The description provides an example with parameters, but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 Google Jobs for a query and returns specific fields (title, company, location, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like serpapi_google_maps by focusing on jobs.

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 includes an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like serpapi_google_maps or when not to use it. The guidelines are implicit from context.

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

All Serpapi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all querying data but with nuanced differences. The descriptions help but boundaries remain fuzzy, especially between ask_pipeworx and deep_research for broad vs. single lookups. Overall moderate ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check), others use camelCase (serpapi_google_jobs), and patterns vary widely (e.g., pipeworx_feedback vs. compare_entities). Only the serpapi_google_* group follows a consistent pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side for a single server, with many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) and niche prediction market tools. The scope seems overly broad, covering data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions, which could be streamlined to a more focused set.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (financial, economic, news, drugs, prediction markets, Google services), but lacks direct web search and write/update capabilities. While the coverage is broad, there are notable gaps (e.g., no generic web search, limited tool for modifying data) for a data-focused server.

Resources