GigNGo Local Services Marketplace

browse_open_tasks

Browse open consumer tasks (jobs) posted on GigNGo that workers can apply to. Each task includes title, description, details (the poster's Additional Details note, present on most jobs and usually the most specific part), category, budget, approximate location (coordinates are privacy-offset), when it was posted (postedAt, ageHours, ageDays, postedAgo), how many locals have applied (applicantCount, hasApplicants) and how fast the first one did (hoursToFirstApplicant), plus a link to apply. Filter by category, state, city, age or applicant count, and sort by newest, oldest, most_applicants or fewest_applicants. All filters are optional — call with no arguments for the most recent open tasks nationwide.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	Optional city slug, lowercase with hyphens. Example: "los-angeles".
`sort`	No	Order of results. "oldest" surfaces the jobs that have been waiting longest (the ones about to be abandoned); "most_applicants" surfaces where locals are actually competing.
`limit`	No	Max tasks to return (1-50, default 20).
`state`	No	Optional full US state name, lowercase, hyphens for spaces. Example: "pennsylvania".
`category`	No	Optional service category slug, e.g. "moving-help". See list_service_categories.
`maxAgeDays`	No	Only tasks posted within this many days.
`unanswered`	No	Only tasks with zero applicants so far — the unfilled queue.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses a lot: returned per-task fields, the privacy-offset of coordinates, the 'details' note being usually most specific, applicant counts, and time-to-first-applicant. It does not state side effects or the meaning of the 'priority' sort option, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause adds information, but the second sentence is a very long enumeration that packs many field names into one list. It is dense rather than concise, though nothing is wasted.

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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains what fields appear in results, what filters exist, and the zero-argument default. The main gap is the omitted 'priority' sort enum value, whose semantics are left undefined in both the description and schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter schema already documents each field; the description adds a broad orientation ('Filter by category, state, city, age or applicant count') and the no-arguments default. This matches the baseline 3 because the description does not materially deepen per-parameter semantics 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 opening verb-resource pair is precise: 'Browse open consumer tasks (jobs) posted on GigNGo that workers can apply to.' It also names the task content and filter dimensions, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_service_categories or search_local_workers.

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 says exactly when to call bare ('call with no arguments for the most recent open tasks nationwide') and enumerates filter dimensions and common sort orders. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is unambiguous for a browsing tool.

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

All GigNGo Local Services Marketplace tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: browsing tasks, searching workers, viewing a single profile, checking availability, measuring demand density, listing categories, and getting platform info. The only close pair is check_service_availability vs search_local_workers, but one gives aggregate counts by category while the other returns detailed worker profiles, so they remain clearly separated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: browse_open_tasks, check_service_availability, get_worker_profile, list_service_categories, search_local_workers. The verbs vary naturally by action but the structure is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a local services marketplace discovery server. Each tool covers an essential need: categories, platform info, task browsing, worker search, profile details, availability, and demand density, with no redundant or filler tools.

Completeness4/5

The read-only discovery workflow is well covered: list categories, check availability, search workers, view profiles, browse tasks, and assess demand density. There is no tool to post a task or apply to one, but the tool descriptions suggest this server is designed for exploration and lookup rather than full marketplace transactions.

Resources

Need Help?