mcp-ashby

Search postings at named companies

search_jobs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search open job postings from named Ashby companies and filter by team, location, salary, workplace, employment type, and date; company names are required because Ashby has no cross-customer index.

Instructions

Search the open postings of named companies on Ashby. Ashby publishes no index across its customers, so companies are required. Every filter runs here rather than at the source, and the answer reports how many postings declared nothing about a field it filtered on. Rows carry no description: read one posting with get_job.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No		published_desc
`team`	No
`limit`	No	How many postings to return.
`query`	No	Words to look for.
`offset`	No	How many postings to skip.
`country`	No
`currency`	No	A three-letter currency code, as in EUR or USD.
`companies`	Yes	Company names or board tokens, one to 10. Each costs a request and a whole board, which is why 5 at a time is the comfortable number.
`is_remote`	No	Keeps only postings that declare it. Postings recording nothing are counted in undeclared rather than treated as on site.
`search_in`	No	Where query is looked for. Descriptions run to thousands of characters each.	title
`department`	No
`salary_min`	No	A floor for the salary component.
`workplace_type`	No
`employment_type`	No
`published_after`	No	An ISO 8601 date.
`salary_interval`	No	The period salary_min belongs to, 1 YEAR unless named. An hourly amount is never weighed against a yearly floor.	1 YEAR
`has_compensation`	No	Keeps only postings whose company publishes a pay range.
`location_contains`	No	Part of a location line.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`jobs`	Yes	No descriptions, at any limit.
`notes`	Yes
`returned`	Yes	Postings in this answer, after limit and offset.
`undeclared`	Yes	Postings a criterion could say nothing about, counted per field. A posting that records no workplace is not a posting on site.
`per_company`	Yes
`total_matched`	Yes	Postings the criteria kept.
`total_on_board`	Yes	Postings the boards read hold, all of them.
`filters_applied`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv2.1.0Oct 30, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / compensation_summary / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / compensation_summary / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / country / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / country / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / is_remote / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / is_remote / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / workplace_type / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / jobs / items / properties / workplace_type / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / per_company / items / properties / board / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / per_company / items / properties / board / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: filters are evaluated locally rather than at the source, the response counts postings that declared nothing for a filtered field, and result rows omit descriptions. Those are exactly the non-obvious traits that affect how an agent interprets results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the required-input constraint, then the filter/undeclared caveat, then the hand-off to get_job. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and 18 documented parameters, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: required input, local filtering semantics, null accounting, and where to go for full text. Cost/latency of multi-company searches and pagination behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly reduces completeness for an open-world multi-request tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% and many parameters already carry useful notes (undeclared handling for is_remote, board-cost for companies, salary interval matching), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds the general rule that filtering happens locally and that missing values are counted rather than excluded, but it does not explain specific parameters such as search_in, has_compensation, or the sort options.

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?

"Search the open postings of named companies on Ashby" gives a specific verb and resource, and the sentence about rows carrying no description explicitly separates this tool from get_job. The scope constraint (companies required, no cross-customer index) further pins down what this tool is and is not.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the mandatory precondition (companies required) and routes the agent to get_job when a full description is needed, which is a genuine use-vs-use-else split. It does not mention the other relevant siblings (resolve_board for board tokens, list_filter_values for valid filter values), so a couple of routing decisions are left to inference.

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

Deploy Server