Skip to main content
Glama
jaytuduri

Job Search MCP Server

by jaytuduri
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are completely distinct: one searches job listings, the other provides information about the job boards used. There is no overlap or confusion between their purposes.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both names are clear and descriptive, but they follow slightly different patterns: search_jobs is verb-first, while job_search_sources is noun-first. This minor inconsistency does not impede understanding.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and borderline. However, for a narrow scope like job search, this minimal set can be acceptable, though it is on the low end of the ideal range.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the core functionality of searching jobs and provides context about data sources. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of pagination or detailed job retrieval, but the basic workflow is complete and usable.

  • 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
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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.json to 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, but 'Search' conveys a read-only operation and the description adds a useful result detail about direct apply URLs. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or potential dependence on external sources, but the behavior is not misleading.

    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 only three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by compact usage examples. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

    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?

    The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description covers the main search terms well. However, it lacks details about optional parameters (limit, remote_only) and does not address the sibling tool, leaving minor gaps.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    The schema has four parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains the query and location parameters with examples, but omits limit and remote_only, leaving two parameters underspecified. This is only partial compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

    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?

    The description opens with 'Search current job listings,' which clearly specifies a search verb and the target resource. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool job_search_sources, but the phrase 'current job listings' distinguishes the core function.

    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 gives parameter usage examples ('use query for skills, titles, or companies') but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when job_search_sources should be used instead.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return information' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't explicitly disclose whether any side effects or authentication are involved. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

    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?

    A single, focused sentence that states the tool's function without any filler. Every word contributes to clarity, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It correctly orients the agent to the tool's purpose without needing to describe return values (schema covers that).

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The tool has zero parameters, so the description needs to explain nothing about parameter usage. Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description simply doesn't need to add parameter-level detail.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clear resource ('information about the job boards used by this server'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself naturally from sibling tool 'search_jobs' by focusing on board metadata rather than job listings.

    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?

    The description implies usage context—when you need details about job boards, not when searching jobs—but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

    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

jobby-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

jobby-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/jaytuduri/jobby-mcp'

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