Search job listings by query and location via public web data, returning normalized results for hiring research or job aggregation. Supports pagination.
Search Google Jobs. Returns normalized Google Jobs results parsed from public Google web responses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | Yes | Google Jobs search payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Input schema / properties / option / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "location": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / option / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "query"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that results are 'normalized' and 'parsed from public Google web responses', indicating scraping of a public source with no auth. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the shape/fields of the returned results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action ('Search Google Jobs') is front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested schema and no output schema, yet the description only says 'normalized Google Jobs results' without detailing fields or pagination. It is sufficient for a simple search call, but an agent would lack information about the result shape and how 'page' behaves. More detail about output and pagination would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'option' payload with query, location, and page. The description adds no additional meaning about how these fields should be populated (e.g., page indexing or location format), so it does not go beyond the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('Google Jobs'), and adds that it returns normalized results from public web responses. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool google_jobs_search, so an agent could not tell which search endpoint to use without more context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Search Google Jobs' implies the tool should be used to query job listings, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as google_jobs_search or google_jobs_job. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.