Skip to main content
Glama

Resume Booster Job Board

Did this employer's board grow?

employer_growth
Read-onlyIdempotent

Did this employer's board serve more roles than it did 7 days earlier? One row per companyToken (up to 20 per call), judged by the board itself from our own daily observation and passed through untouched: grew, no-growth, or unknown — and unknown ALWAYS carries unknown_reason (a feed bigger than one visit can read, a board too new or too small for a rate, a gap in our own series, a pool that was replaced rather than grown…): an unknown is a reading we could not take, never a no. The bars the verdict uses: at least 10 roles served at the window's start; then BOTH at least 4 more roles AND at least 25% more, on a board tracked for at least 21 days, with every read in the window whole. Per BOARD (a vendor tenant), never summed across an employer's boards; more roles served is roles opened net of roles that came down — not a headcount and not a hire. This tool never ranks employers, and no list of growing employers exists here or anywhere on the board. Needs a key or a sign-in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyTokensYescompanyToken values from job cards or search_jobs. Up to 20; more is refused with the count named.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barsYesWhat the verdict measured against — for reading a row, never for re-judging one.
askedNo
basisYes
employersYesOne row per token asked, in the order asked. A token with no daily series answers unknown with its reason.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. It explains that 'unknown' is a result when a reading couldn't be taken, and it details the exact business logic (thresholds, per-board scope, net roles served). This transparency helps the agent understand edge cases and the meaning of outputs.

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 dense with useful details but is somewhat long. It front-loads the main question and then provides necessary nuances. While every sentence adds value, the structure could be more scannable, e.g., with bullet-point style, but the prose is efficient overall.

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?

The tool is complex with multiple conditions and edge cases (e.g., unknown_reason), and the description covers all critical aspects: thresholds, board vs. employer, net roles, and the meaning of unknown. The output schema likely details the return format, so return values need no explanation.

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?

The schema already provides a complete description for companyTokens (from job cards or search_jobs, up to 20). The description adds no additional parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema states, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description answers the exact question 'Did this employer's board grow?' by defining the judgment criteria (more roles served, thresholds of 10, 4, and 25%, 21-day tracking). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like board_stats or employer_hiring_record by focusing on board growth versus other statistics.

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?

It says this tool 'never ranks employers' and that no list of growing employers exists, which clarifies when not to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for ranking or listing, but the context about scope (per board, not summed) provides clear usage guidance.

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.