掲載中の公開求人を検索する（読み取り専用）。正準職種・都道府県・希望年収下限（円）・リモート可否で絞り込み、求人タイトル・会社名・正準職種・給与レンジ・勤務地・公開求人キー・公開 URL のリストを返す。返却された職種は salary_market にそのまま指定できる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返却件数の上限（1〜20、既定 10） | |
| remote | No | リモート可の求人に限定するか（任意、既定 false） | |
| occupation | No | 求人の正準職種名（任意、完全一致） | |
| prefecture | No | 勤務地の都道府県標準表記（任意、完全一致。例: 東京都） | |
| salary_min | No | 希望年収下限（円、任意。例: 4000000） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description redundantly confirms 読み取り専用. Beyond that it adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (タイトル, 会社名, 給与レンジ, 公開 URL, etc.) and confirming the result is suited for reuse in salary_market, which annotations cannot convey.
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, no filler, with the read-only note and the filter list front-loaded. Dense but readable; the enumeration of return fields is slightly long yet justified given the absence of an output schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields, and with no required parameters it clarifies each is optional. It omits pagination/ordering behavior for the limit parameter and any empty-result semantics, which are minor gaps for a read-only 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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema with defaults and units. The description restates the same filter dimensions (職種, 都道府県, 年収下限, リモート) without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (検索する / 公開求人), scopes it to 掲載中の公開求人, and enumerates the filter dimensions. It also differentiates itself from the sibling salary_market by explaining the handoff of the returned 職種, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.
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?
Usage is implied through the filter list and the explicit note that returned 職種 can be passed to salary_market, which is useful cross-tool guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and job_detail is never mentioned, so the agent must infer the boundary between this and the other sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.