Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-lightcast

mcp-lightcast

by lawwu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Classify Occupation

classify_occupation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Classifies job titles and optional descriptions into Lightcast LOT specialized occupations, with adjustable confidence thresholds and result limits for accurate role matching.

Instructions

Classify a title and optional description to LOT specialized occupations. May consume a limited classifier quota.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "classify_occupation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
titleYes
versionNolatest
descriptionNo
confidence_thresholdNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call may consume a limited classifier quota. It stops short of saying what happens on quota exhaustion, whether results are cached between calls, or how many candidates are returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no filler. The quota caveat is placed last where it belongs. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally clean.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition is still thin for a five-parameter classification tool. Three parameters are undocumented, the 'LOT' taxonomy is undefined, and quota exhaustion behavior is unstated, leaving real gaps an agent must resolve by trial.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. Only 'title' and 'description' are mentioned; 'limit', 'confidence_threshold', and especially 'version' (which classification release is used) are left with no meaning beyond their raw schema constraints. Given the low coverage, this is a clear shortfall against the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names a specific verb (Classify) and the inputs (title plus optional description), and states the output domain is 'LOT specialized occupations'. However, 'LOT' is unexplained jargon and nothing distinguishes this from look-alike siblings such as normalize_job_title or map_taxonomy_concepts, so the agent cannot tell which one produces specialized-occupation classifications.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only contextual note is a quota warning, which is a cost caveat rather than routing guidance. An agent has to guess whether to classify, normalize, or map a title.

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