Jobs Base
Server Details
Curated job board for builder roles: founding engineers, solo builders, and "0 to 1" positions. Search and filter by location, salary, seniority, workplace model, visa sponsorship, and more. No API key needed.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct and non-overlapping purpose: list_filters for discovering filter values, search_jobs for searching listings, and get_job for retrieving full details. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_filters, search_jobs, get_job. Clear and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but sufficient for the stated purpose of a read-only job board. It is slightly under the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped.
The tools cover the essential workflow: discover filters, search by criteria, and view details. Missing features like pagination or browsing all jobs are minor gaps that agents can work around.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_jobARead-onlyInspect
Get full details of a specific builder job by its ID, including description, skills, experience requirements, benefits, and company info. Use this after search_jobs to retrieve the complete listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The job ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about what details are included (e.g., benefits, company info) and the prerequisite use of search_jobs, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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's low complexity (single parameter, read-only per annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and included details, but could benefit from mentioning return format or error cases for full completeness, though annotations help mitigate this gap.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's a job ID from search_jobs, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('Get full details'), resource ('builder job'), and scope ('by its ID'), with explicit mention of included fields like description, skills, and company info. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing 'search_jobs' for initial discovery, avoiding redundancy.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('after search_jobs to retrieve the complete listing'), providing clear sequencing guidance. It implies an alternative use case (search_jobs for initial results), though it doesn't explicitly name other siblings like 'list_filters' for filtering options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_filtersARead-onlyInspect
Get available filter values for search_jobs: job types, workplace types, cities, countries, seniority levels, and companies. Call this first to discover valid filter values before searching, especially for country codes and available cities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with closed-world data. The description adds valuable context about the tool's purpose in a workflow (discovering filter values before searching) and specific use cases (country codes, cities), though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.
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?
Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and enumerates the filter categories. The second sentence provides usage guidance with specific examples. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a 0-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns and how to use it in the workflow. It could slightly improve by mentioning the format of returned values or pagination, but it's largely complete for this tool's complexity.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately explains that no parameters are needed ('Call this first') and clarifies the tool's purpose without attempting to document non-existent parameters.
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 specific action ('Get available filter values') and resource ('for search_jobs'), listing the exact categories of values returned (job types, workplace types, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search_jobs' by explaining it provides filter values needed for that search tool.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this first to discover valid filter values before searching') and why ('especially for country codes and available cities'). It clearly positions this as a prerequisite for the sibling 'search_jobs' tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_jobsARead-onlyInspect
Search and filter builder job listings on jobsbase.io — a curated board exclusively for "builder" roles (cross-functional positions where one person owns engineering, product, and delivery end-to-end: founding engineers, solo builders, 0-to-1 roles). Every job here is already an AI-native builder role, so do NOT search for generic terms like "builder", "AI", "full-stack", or "engineer" — they are redundant and will hurt results. Just use filters (country, workplace, seniority, etc.) to narrow down. Use q only for specific technologies, companies, or domain keywords. All parameters are optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Optional keyword for specific technologies, domains, or companies (e.g. "React", "fintech", "Stripe"). Do NOT use generic terms like "builder", "AI", "engineer", or "developer" — every job on this board already matches those. Omit to browse all jobs. | |
| city | No | Filter by city. Comma-separated for multiple: London,Berlin | |
| sort | No | Sort order: relevance (best match first), posted_at (newest first, default), salary (highest salary first) | |
| type | No | Filter by job type. Comma-separated for multiple: full-time,contract. Values: full-time, part-time, contract, freelance, internship | |
| limit | Yes | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| state | No | Filter by state/province name. Comma-separated for multiple: California,Texas | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for next page of results | |
| region | No | Filter by geographic region. Comma-separated for multiple. Values: north_america, latin_america, europe, asia_pacific, middle_east_africa | |
| company | No | Filter by exact company name | |
| country | No | Filter by country code. Comma-separated for multiple: US,GB,CA | |
| workplace | No | Filter by workplace. Comma-separated for multiple: remote,hybrid. Values: remote, hybrid, on-site | |
| posted_within | No | Filter by posting date: past 24h, 3d, 7d, 14d, or 30d | |
| salary_at_most | Yes | Show jobs that can pay at most this amount annually (normalized to annual equivalent) | |
| education_level | No | Filter by minimum education level | |
| salary_at_least | Yes | Show jobs that can pay at least this amount annually (normalized to annual equivalent) | |
| seniority_level | No | Filter by seniority. Comma-separated for multiple: mid,senior. Values: internship, entry, mid, senior, lead, executive | |
| visa_sponsorship | Yes | Set to true to only show jobs that offer visa sponsorship | |
| experience_no_more_than | Yes | Show jobs requiring no more than this many years of experience |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description adds context about the curated board and search behavior. But the claim 'All parameters are optional' contradicts the input schema (5 required fields), which could mislead agents. Otherwise, no contradictions with annotations.
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 front-loaded with purpose and includes necessary guidance. While it is 5 sentences, each sentence serves a function. Slightly verbose but well-structured.
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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description provides critical context about the board's curation and effective search strategy. Missing details on pagination and output format, but does not significantly hinder selection or invocation.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage of q (avoiding generic terms) and how filters narrow down, which enhances semantic understanding beyond schema.
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 searches and filters builder job listings on jobsbase.io, with a specific definition of 'builder' roles. It distinguishes from siblings (get_job, list_filters) by focusing on search and filtering.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use q (specific terms only) vs filters, and warns against redundant generic terms. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or mention use cases for get_job/list_filters.
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!