Skip to main content
Glama

rundata.re · La Réunion en direct

Offres d'emploi public à La Réunion

emploi
Read-only

Offres d'emploi de la fonction publique à La Réunion (974), d'après Choisir le service public : État, communes, Département, Région, hôpitaux, université. Pour chaque offre ouverte : l'employeur, la date limite de candidature et le lien pour postuler, la plus récente d'abord. Donner le lien de chaque offre ; la page de l'offre fait foi (elle peut être pourvue avant sa date limite). Les offres des entreprises n'y sont pas : renvoyer à France Travail, sans en inventer. Avec mot_cle, aussi les formations CPF de La Réunion (formations_cpf, sans commune ni formation à distance) : ne jamais dire qu'une formation n'existe pas, ni comparer les frais. Pour : « offres d'emploi à la mairie de Saint-Paul ? », « le CHU recrute des infirmiers ? », « emploi public au Tampon ? », « formation cariste CPF ? ».

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "emploi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lieuNoUne commune ou un lieu de l'île (« Saint-Pierre », « Saint-Gilles ») pour les offres de sa commune. Vide = toute l'île.
mot_cleNoDes mots de l'intitulé, du métier ou de l'employeur : « infirmier », « agent d'entretien », « CHU », « contractuel », « cariste ».

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / mot_cle / description
      Previous value: -"Des mots de l'intitulé, du métier ou de l'employeur : « infirmier », « agent d'entretien », « CHU », « contractuel »."New value: +"Des mots de l'intitulé, du métier ou de l'employeur : « infirmier », « agent d'entretien », « CHU », « contractuel », « cariste »."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, open-world read, and the description adds substantial behaviour beyond that: results are sorted most-recent-first, the offer page is authoritative and may be filled before its deadline, and the agent must always surface each offer's link. It further discloses two guardrails for the CPF branch (never claim a formation does not exist, never compare fees), which meaningfully constrain how the agent should phrase answers.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then the per-result fields, then ordering, then the exclusion, then the mot_cle extension, then example queries — a sensible priority order. It is dense and runs long for a two-parameter tool, and the parenthetical about the offer page being filled early could be tightened, but no sentence is truly wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 naming the returned fields (employeur, date limite de candidature, lien pour postuler) and the sort order, which is exactly what an agent needs to present results. Combined with the sourcing caveat, the private-sector exclusion and the CPF branch rules, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation or reporting.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: mot_cle also unlocks CPF formations (with commune and distance-learning variants excluded), and lieu is implicitly whole-island when empty, matching the schema. The added semantics are useful but mostly restate the schema's own examples and coverage.

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?

States the exact resource and scope: public-sector job offers in Réunion (974), naming the source (Choisir le service public) and the employer categories covered (État, communes, Département, Région, hôpitaux, université). It also carves out a distinct secondary resource (formations_cpf) triggered by mot_cle, so an agent knows precisely what this tool returns and what it does not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use coverage via worked example queries (« offres d'emploi à la mairie de Saint-Paul ? », « formation cariste CPF ? »), plus an explicit exclusion: private-company offers are not here and should be routed to France Travail, without fabricating them. It also states the condition that unlocks CPF training results (mot_cle present).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.