Job Board MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for job listings and the other retrieves details for a specific job by ID. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tools follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_jobs and get_job_details. The naming is predictable and consistent.
Tool Count3/5Two tools feels thin for a job board server. While they cover the basic search-and-detail flow, a typical job board server would likely benefit from additional tools such as listing recent jobs, filtering by platform, or paginating results.
Completeness3/5The server covers the core read-only workflow of searching for jobs and viewing details, but it lacks other common operations like browsing all recent jobs without a query, pagination controls, or platform-specific listing. The surface is functional but minimal.
Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it 'Returns a list of jobs' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, whether the 'limit' is a hard cap, or what happens when no jobs match. It also doesn't mention any rate limits or platform-specific quirks. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes a useful example platform and states the return type. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the return behavior), but it's efficient and not bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the relationship with get_job_details (e.g., 'use get_job_details to fetch full details for a returned job ID'), nor does it describe result structure or edge cases. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what fields are returned, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'query and location' but doesn't clarify the default behavior of location ('Defaults to Remote' is in the schema, not the description). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('job listings across multiple platforms'), and names an example platform (Lever). It clearly distinguishes from get_job_details, which is about retrieving details for a specific job. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use this to find jobs matching a query and location. It doesn't explicitly state when to use get_job_details instead, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling name suggests a complementary flow (search then get details), but the description doesn't spell that out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, permission requirements, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the object, and the prerequisite source of the ID with no extraneous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter lookup tool, this is largely complete: the workflow dependency on search_jobs is specified and the parameter is fully described by the schema. It does not describe error behavior or the exact response shape, but those are not critical for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the ID comes from search_jobs but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get detailed information'), the specific subject ('a specific job posting'), and the key qualifier ('using its ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_jobs by focusing on a single known job rather than searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states the ID is '(returned from search_jobs)', which establishes the prerequisite workflow: run a search first, then fetch details for a selected job. It does not explicitly exclude other paths, but provides clear contextual usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: