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.
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.
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_jobs finds jobs, get_job retrieves full details for a specific ID, and list_filters provides valid filter values. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: search_jobs, get_job, list_filters. The style is consistent and predictable.
Three tools is minimal but perfectly scoped for a read-only job board: discover filters, search, view details. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary extras.
The server covers the complete browsing workflow for builder jobs: list_filters enables informed searching, search_jobs finds relevant listings, and get_job provides full details. No create/update/delete operations are needed for this read-only domain.
get_jobAGet 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what fields are returned and the fact that it retrieves a complete listing, but does not discuss error cases, rate limits, or authentication. This matches the baseline for annotation-supported tools.
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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and content, the second provides usage context. Front-loaded and perfectly sized.
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?
The tool is simple (single param), annotations are strong, and the description lists the returned fields even without an output schema. Sibling tools make the workflow clear, and the description fully covers the tool's scope and place in the process.
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 100% with the id parameter described as 'The job ID'. The description reiterates that retrieval is by ID but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 gets full details of a specific job by ID and enumerates the content (description, skills, experience requirements, benefits, company info). It also names search_jobs as a sibling, distinguishing it from the 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?
It explicitly instructs to use this after search_jobs to retrieve complete listings, providing clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name list_filters as an alternative, but the usage pattern is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_filtersAGet 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 | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation is complemented by the description mentioning the tool returns filter categories and that calling it first is important. It also hints that country codes and cities may be especially important, adding value beyond the annotation.
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 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the usage in the second sentence. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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 low-complexity tool with no parameters and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers what it returns and when to use it. It does not specify the exact output structure, but listing the filter categories provides a reasonable expectation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description correctly implies that no input is needed to get the filter values, which is the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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 gets available filter values for search_jobs, listing specific categories (job types, workplace types, cities, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools get_job and search_jobs, which are about retrieving job data rather than filter metadata.
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?
It explicitly instructs to call this first to discover valid filter values before searching, which is clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but for a pre-search discovery tool, this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_jobsASearch 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description aligns with these by stating 'Search and filter' (read-only). It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that generic search terms will 'hurt results' because the board is exclusively builder roles, implying a closed-world constraint. This is useful for an agent to avoid suboptimal queries. No annotation contradiction.
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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence contributes context: scope, usage caution, and q guidance. However, the inaccurate 'All parameters are optional' clause is both false and unnecessary, adding noise rather than value. It remains fairly concise and well-structured despite that flaw.
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 search tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key differentiators (builder-only board and the generic-term warning) and provides usage patterns. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required (contradicting the schema), and it lacks any mention of pagination or return format, even though cursor/limit appear in the schema. The misleading 'all parameters optional' creates a notable completeness 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?
The input schema provides descriptions for all 18 parameters (100% coverage), so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds some value by clarifying the intended use of q (specific technologies, companies, or domain keywords) and emphasizing filters, but the statement 'All parameters are optional' conflicts with the schema's required list, undermining parameter semantics. Overall, the added meaning beyond the schema is marginal.
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's purpose: 'Search and filter builder job listings on jobsbase.io'. It is specific about the resource (jobs on a curated board) and the operation (search/filter), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on list/search rather than fetching a single job (get_job) or returning filter options (list_filters). The added context about 'builder roles' makes the scope unambiguous.
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: it warns against using generic terms like 'builder', 'AI', or 'engineer' because they are redundant and 'will hurt results', and instructs to use q only for specific technologies, companies, or domains. While it does not mention when to use get_job or list_filters instead, the guidance for using filters vs. q is strong. However, the claim 'All parameters are optional' contradicts the schema's required fields, which is misleading.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
