Resume Booster Job Board

Search (alias of search_jobs, in ChatGPT's research shape)

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

An ALIAS of search_jobs in the fixed shape ChatGPT's deep-research and company-knowledge connectors call: one query string in, {results:[{id,title,url}]} out. Every result's id is the job id fetch and every other tool take; url is the employer's own apply page when the board holds one, else the posting's page on the site. Same board, same ranking, same limit as an unkeyed search_jobs (10 rows); the disclosures ride beside the results. Any other client should call search_jobs, which takes every filter.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Free text — title, skills, a place, exclusions with a leading minus.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`total`	No	Exact match count. ABSENT with countUnavailable:true when the board refuses to guess.
`hasMore`	No
`results`	Yes
`didYouMean`	No
`nextOffset`	No	Pass back as `offset` for the next page.
`relatedTotal`	No	Further postings matched in the description only, beyond `total` (which counts title matches). Each card says which in matchScope.
`excludedTerms`	No
`intentFilters`	No	Words read out of the query as filters.
`relatedCapped`	No	relatedTotal stopped counting at the board's cap; the true figure is higher.
`filterCoverage`	No	For each filter applied, the live share (0-1) of the board that states the field it filters on; rows that state nothing are excluded.
`ignoredFilters`	No	Filters the board could NOT apply. Results answer a wider question than was asked.
`agenciesExcluded`	No	Row-selecting: disclosed agency inventory is hidden from this page.
`countUnavailable`	No	The board could not count this query exactly — do not report a total.
`filterCoverageAt`	No	When filterCoverage was measured. ABSENT when a figure is a pinned fallback rather than a live reading.
`salaryStatedOnly`	No	Row-selecting: this page excludes the postings with no annualised figure in approximate US dollars, including postings that publish an hourly rate (filterCoverage, when present, gives the live share).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 11, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / filterCoverage

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "description": "For each filter applied, the live share (0-1) of the board that states the field it filters on; rows that state nothing are excluded.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / filterCoverageAt

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When filterCoverage was measured. ABSENT when a figure is a pinned fallback rather than a live reading.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / relatedCapped

Added value: +{
+  "description": "relatedTotal stopped counting at the board's cap; the true figure is higher.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / relatedTotal

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Further postings matched in the description only, beyond `total` (which counts title matches). Each card says which in matchScope.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / salaryStatedOnly / description

Previous value: -"Row-selecting: this page excludes the ~76% of postings with no annualised figure in approximate US dollars (2026-09-27), including postings that publish an hourly rate."New value: +"Row-selecting: this page excludes the postings with no annualised figure in approximate US dollars, including postings that publish an hourly rate (filterCoverage, when present, gives the live share)."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 27, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / salaryStatedOnly / description

Previous value: -"Row-selecting: this page excludes the ~87% of postings with no stated pay."New value: +"Row-selecting: this page excludes the ~76% of postings with no annualised figure in approximate US dollars (2026-09-27), including postings that publish an hourly rate."

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the result cap (10 rows), that ranking and board match an unkeyed search_jobs, that disclosures ride beside results, and what id and url actually denote. It stops short of describing pagination or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The alias identity and the routing rule are front-loaded in the first and last sentences, with the return-shape and limit details sandwiched in between. Three sentences, no filler, and every clause carries information an agent needs to decide or parse.

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?

Output schema exists, so the shape itself need not be explained, yet the description still supplies the semantics of id and url and the 10-row limit. Combined with annotations and the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 single query parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the leading-minus exclusion syntax, so the schema carries the burden. The description only says "one query string in" and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for high 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (a search that is an alias of search_jobs) and pins down the contract: one query string in, a fixed {results:[{id,title,url}]} shape out. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_jobs, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

It states the exact call condition (the fixed shape ChatGPT's deep-research and company-knowledge connectors use) and an explicit exclusion: "Any other client should call search_jobs, which takes every filter." Both the when and the when-not, plus the named alternative, are present.

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

All Resume Booster Job Board tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.