Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

jobs_company_search

Find a company's ATS by slug: probe multiple ATS providers in parallel and return matching boards with open-role counts and URLs.

Instructions

Find which ATS a company uses by slug. Probes Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, SmartRecruiters, Workable, Recruitee, Rippling, Teamtailor, and Pinpoint in parallel for a slug and reports the providers where it resolves to a non-empty board (with the open-role count and board URL). Workday is excluded (its board needs tenant + datacenter + site).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesCompany careers slug to probe

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the nine probed providers, discloses that probing is parallel, defines resolution as a non-empty board, describes the returned fields (open-role count and board URL), and explains the Workday exclusion. Remaining gaps are minor (timeouts, failure modes, slug format).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by mechanism and then the exclusion. Nearly every clause earns its place; the parenthetical return-field list is useful but slightly dense.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers purpose, mechanism, provider list, resolution semantics, returned content, and a scoping exclusion. That is enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only edge-case behavior left unspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description repeats 'by slug'/'for a slug' but adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find which ATS a company uses by slug.' The multi-provider probing mechanism clearly sets it apart from per-ATS siblings like jobs_greenhouse_board or jobs_lever_postings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied (discovery of an ATS before using a specific board tool) but never stated. The Workday exclusion is a partial 'when not' that warns the agent about a coverage gap, yet there is no explicit routing to alternatives or statement of when this tool should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools