Skip to main content
Glama
Matthew3957

ai-toolkit

by Matthew3957

ats_fetch_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches live job postings directly from a company's ATS public API (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Workday). Bypasses JavaScript-rendered career pages that appear empty, returning normalized JSON.

Instructions

Read one company's job board from its ATS's public API, normalized.

Use this instead of fetching a careers page: Greenhouse, Lever, and Ashby boards are JavaScript shells whose HTML contains no postings, so a page fetch returns an empty-looking board for a company that is actively hiring. This reads the same postings the board renders, as JSON.

platform is greenhouse, lever, ashby, or workday — the four that publish a board API. iCIMS, SuccessFactors, and Taleo publish none, so coverage of employers on those systems is deliberately partial; cross-check them against an aggregator. slug is the bare board slug, not a URL — the last path segment of the board address (labelbox, people-ai, handshake) — except for workday, whose identity has three parts: pass tenant.wdN/site (adobe.wd5/external_experienced) or the board URL itself. Workday reads are paged 20 at a time, so large tenants are slow when unfiltered — pass a title_filter and it is pushed down as a Workday search, which is cheap; Workday postings carry approximate day-resolution posted dates and never compensation. Pass company with the company you expect this slug to belong to and the result is checked against the board's own name: mismatches come back as NAME_MISMATCH with the jobs still attached, which is how you catch a slug that points at a different company of the same name. Only Greenhouse publishes a board name, so this check is inert for Lever and Ashby.

title_filter keeps postings whose title contains any of the given strings (case-insensitive). updated_since is an ISO date that keeps postings posted or updated at/after it. keywords is different from both: it never drops a posting — every returned job gains a keyword_hits list naming which of your keywords its title, team, or description mentions. Use it for ranking signal in high-volume searches (e.g. a stack list like ["Salesforce", "HubSpot", "Clari"]); since stacks are named in descriptions, pair it with include_descriptions for meaningful hits. include_descriptions adds a plain-text snippet per job (~1,500 chars) and makes the Greenhouse request much larger, so it defaults off. full_descriptions goes one step further and returns each posting's whole description, untruncated (it implies include_descriptions): use it to go deep on one board whose roles a sweep has already surfaced, paired with a title_filter or a small limit so the read stays readable — long postings run to several thousand characters each. Keyword hits are then found anywhere in the posting, not only in its first 1,500 characters. The field is still named description_snippet so pipelines see one shape. limit/offset page through the matches, response_format is markdown (a table, for reading) or json (for pipelines).

The result always reports total_on_board, matched (after your filters), and count (this page), so a filtered or paginated read can never be mistaken for the whole board. Board trouble is reported as a status on the result — BOARD_EMPTY, SLUG_NOT_FOUND, NOT_FOUND_OR_API_DISABLED, RATE_LIMITED, UPSTREAM_ERROR, TIMEOUT — each with a detail saying what it means and what to do next. An empty board is not a dead company, and a 404 is not proof of one; read the detail before concluding anything. Compensation is reported only where the platform publishes it as structured data, never read out of the description text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes
limitNo
offsetNo
companyNo
keywordsNo
platformYes
title_filterNo
updated_sinceNo
response_formatNomarkdown
full_descriptionsNo
include_compensationNo
include_descriptionsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: Workday pagination and performance trade-offs, how status codes (BOARD_EMPTY, SLUG_NOT_FOUND, etc.) are reported with detail instructions, the behavior of full_descriptions implying include_descriptions, and the rule about compensation only from structured data. It even warns against misinterpreting empty boards or 404s. This goes far beyond annotations and provides essential operational context.

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 long (12 parameters) but dense and efficiently structured. It leads with purpose, then parameter-by-parameter guidance, then result/error semantics. Each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. The use of backticks for parameters and clear conceptual groups (e.g., filters vs. output shaping) makes it scannable despite its length.

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?

The description covers all necessary operational aspects: how to form slugs, query filtering, pagination, output format, status/error handling, performance considerations, and caveats about compensation and board-name availability. It even explains the distinction between filtering and keyword matching, and the implications of full descriptions. With an output schema present and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: platform values and their meaning (greenhouse/lever/ashby/workday), slug format (bare slug vs workday's three-part identity), company parameter for name-mismatch detection, title_filter behavior, updated_since semantics, keywords (non-filtering, adds keyword_hits), include_descriptions and full_descriptions trade-offs, response_format values, and the note on compensation. Every parameter is explained with usage nuance beyond the schema's bare types.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read one company's job board from its ATS's public API, normalized." It explicitly contrasts with fetching a careers page for JavaScript-shell ATSs (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby), which clearly differentiates it from generic page-fetch tools like http_request. This distinguishes it from siblings and states exactly what it does.

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 directly instructs "Use this instead of fetching a careers page" and explains why (those boards are JS shells). It also covers when to avoid it (platforms without board APIs like iCIMS/SuccessFactors/Taleo) and advises cross-checking those against aggregators. It implies single-board use vs. sweep tools by saying "one company's job board," giving clear context and alternatives.

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