Skip to main content
Glama

search_jobs

Search for jobs with filters like titles, locations, companies, skills, salary, and remote options. Returns a list of matching job postings.

Instructions

Search for jobs with filters like titles, locations, companies, skills, salary, and remote options. Returns a list of matching job postings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
limitNoMaximum number of results (default: 5, max: 50). Keep low to avoid large responses.
remoteNoFilter for remote jobs only
skillsNoRequired skills (e.g., ["Python", "React", "AWS"])
titlesNoJob titles to search for (e.g., ["Software Engineer", "Senior Developer"]). Max 6 titles.
companiesNoSpecific companies to search (e.g., ["Google", "Meta", "Apple"])
countriesNoCountry codes to filter (e.g., ["US", "CA", "UK"])
expLevelsNoExperience levels (e.g., ["SE" for Senior, "MI" for Mid-level, "EN" for Entry])
locationsNoLocations to search in (e.g., ["San Francisco", "New York", "Remote"])
dateOffsetNoOnly show jobs posted within this time period (e.g., "2D" for last 2 days)
industriesNoFilter by company industries (use get_industries to see valid values)
companySizeNoFilter by company size (e.g., ["xs" for 1-50, "s" for 50-200, "m" for 200-1K, "l" for 1K-5K, "xl" for 5K+])
baseSalaryMaxNoMaximum base salary (USD)
baseSalaryMinNoMinimum base salary (USD)
h1bSponsorshipNoFilter for jobs offering H1B sponsorship
excludedCompaniesNoCompanies to exclude from results
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Returns a list of matching job postings' but does not mention pagination behavior, default response sizes, potential rate limits, or the fact that no filters will return all jobs. The schema documents page and limit parameters, but the description does not clarify how they affect behavior, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the purpose and the return type. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every phrase ('Search for jobs with filters...', 'Returns a list...') serves a clear communicative purpose, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters) and lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified. It does not explain how filters combine (e.g., AND logic), whether results are sorted, or that pagination is available. However, the rich schema covers parameter semantics, and the description clearly states the core purpose and output. It is minimally complete but lacks helpful context about pagination and no-filter behavior, warranting a score slightly above the minimum.

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?

The schema covers all 16 parameters with detailed descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by listing some filter categories (titles, locations, companies, skills, salary, remote), which maps to schema properties. However, it does not add new semantic meaning, syntax, or combination rules beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the existence of filters but does not compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search for jobs with filters like titles, locations, companies, skills, salary, and remote options.' This specific verb-action and resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_job (retrieve one job) and match_jobs (likely a different matching algorithm). It also notes the output ('Returns a list of matching job postings'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to related tools such as match_jobs, get_job, or import_job_by_url. The only usage context is implicit from the tool's name and purpose, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between multiple job-related tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pratik060921/jobgpt'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server