onet-match

match_occupations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Maps free text such as job titles, resume lines, or skills to the closest O*NET occupations, returning ranked matches with SOC codes, confidence, tasks, and skills.

Instructions

Match free text about work to the closest O*NET occupations.

    text: a job title, resume bullet, job posting, project description, interest statement or
    skill list. top_k: number of occupations to return (1-20). Returns ranked occupations with
    SOC codes, calibrated confidence, key tasks and skills, plus an aggregate skill and RIASEC
    interest profile.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`top_k`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: results are ranked, include calibrated confidence, key tasks and skills, and an aggregate skill and RIASEC interest profile.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then concisely defines the inputs and output shape. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be improved by noting when to prefer get_occupation instead, but overall it is complete for this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well by explaining that text can be a job title, resume bullet, job posting, project description, interest statement, or skill list, and that top_k controls the number of occupations returned (1-20) with a default of 5 implied by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: matching free text about work to the closest O*NET occupations. It is clearly distinct in spirit from the sibling get_occupation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context by enumerating the kinds of text accepted (job title, resume bullet, job posting, project description, interest statement, skill list). It does not state when not to use this tool or explicitly direct the agent to get_occupation for known SOC codes, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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

Deploy Server