Skip to main content
Glama
starnikovoleg

hiringindex-mcp

by starnikovoleg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Aggregate a slice of the job market

job_market_insights
Read-onlyIdempotent

Aggregate job counts, salary percentiles, remote share, top employers, seniority, employment type, city, and source splits for any posting filter. Get market-level insights without paging through individual roles.

Instructions

Counts, salary percentiles by currency, remote share, top employers, seniority and employment-type mix, city and source split for any slice of postings. Accepts the same filters as search_jobs. Use this instead of paging through results when the question is about the market rather than about individual roles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoCity name as employers write it, e.g. "Berlin", "New York", "Bengaluru".
formatNo
titlesNoJob titles to match, e.g. ["Data Engineer"]. Terms shorter than 3 characters are rejected by the index.
companyNoRestrict to one employer by name.
countryNoCountry as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code ("US", "DE") or an English name ("Germany").
keywordsNoTerms mentioned anywhere in the posting — title or description — e.g. ["Kubernetes"]. Any keyword matches. Use titles for the role itself; keywords for a tool, skill or technology the posting talks about.
salary_maxNoHighest advertised salary to include.
salary_minNoLowest advertised salary to include. Only postings that disclose a salary match.
board_handleNoRestrict to one ATS board by its handle, exactly as the `handle` field of a posting reports it, e.g. "EndeavorITSolution" (SmartRecruiters) or "walmart:wd504:WalmartExternal" (Workday). The precise way to pull one employer's postings when names are ambiguous.
work_arrangementNoFilter by how the work is done. Hybrid is not a separate filter upstream.
posted_within_daysNoOnly postings published in the last N days.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns aggregate market statistics rather than a list of postings, and its filters are identical to search_jobs. This is more than what annotations alone convey, though no deep caveats like rate limits or data freshness are mentioned.

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?

Three sentences, all informative. The output metrics are front-loaded, the filter equivalence is stated compactly, and the usage guidance is one clear sentence. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does enumerate the main metric categories. It could be more explicit about the shape of the response and how the format parameter affects it, but the listed dimensions give an agent a solid mental model of what to expect.

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 91%, so the schema already explains individual parameters in detail. The description adds the cross-tool point that the tool accepts the same filters as search_jobs, which is helpful, but it does not need to repeat parameter-level semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action (aggregate/count) and a clear resource (slice of job postings), and enumerates the exact metrics returned: counts, salary percentiles, remote share, top employers, etc. It also distinguishes itself from paging through individual results, making the purpose obvious relative to siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of paging through results when the question is about the market rather than individual roles. It also states that it accepts the same filters as search_jobs, giving clear routing guidance against the main sibling tool.

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