Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@job-search-mcp Check this job posting for visa sponsorship and whether it's senior or not."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP server for job hunting under a visa constraint.
If you need sponsorship, most job search tooling answers the wrong question. It tells you a role exists. It does not tell you whether the employer can legally hire you, or whether the "mid-level" title is hiding a senior brief, or that the company posting the role is a recruitment agency that holds no licence at all.
This server answers those questions. It exposes four tools over the Model Context Protocol so an AI assistant can check them itself instead of guessing.
Tool | Answers |
| Does this employer hold a UK Skilled Worker licence, and how much can I trust the match? |
| Are there hard bars here? Is the title telling the truth about seniority? |
| What is live right now, minus the agencies? |
| Have I already applied here? |
Related MCP server: JobFindsMe
The obvious way to check a sponsor licence is to search the register for the company name. That is how this started, and it is wrong often enough to be dangerous.
Company names collide. To match Pimberly against its registered name Pimberly Software Development Limited, you have to strip words like "Software" and "Limited". That same normalisation turns Minerva Defence into minerva, which matches thirteen unrelated companies: a furnishing business, a credit agency, a supported-living provider.
So check_sponsor returns a confidence grade rather than a boolean:
high — the distinctive part of the name matched exactly, once.
verify — something matched, but it could be coincidence. Confirm the employer's
registered legal entity, then look that name up.
none — nothing matched. This is not proof they cannot sponsor. Many licensed
employers trade under a name unlike their registered one.
Real cases that shaped this:
Searched | Matched | What was true |
Minerva Defence | 13 unrelated "Minerva" rows |
|
Prevail | Prevail Technology Limited (Poole) | The employer is |
MAGIC | MAGIC SOFTWARE SERVICES LTD | Right answer, wrong evidence. The employer is |
TransPerfect | PERFECT DIGITAL LTD | Matched on the word "perfect" |
eFinancialCareers | eFinancialCareers Ltd | Correct and useless: licensed, but a job board. Roles under its name belong to unnamed third parties |
screen_posting reads the body, not the titleA posting titled "Software Engineer" opened with "As a Senior Software Engineer you will" and asked for someone to join "the founding team". Another titled "Software Engineer (Java Mid)" named a senior grade three paragraphs down. Title-based filtering misses both.
screen_posting also catches hard bars that no amount of tailoring survives:
You must be a UK citizen and have lived in the UK for the past 10 years.
You must already hold high-level UK security clearance.and the one that matters most when you need sponsorship, from a company that holds an A-rated licence:
We are unable to offer visa sponsorship for this role. Candidates who need visa
sponsorship now or will need it in the future will not be considered.A licence means a company can sponsor. It does not mean it will.
search_roles returns a funnelUK job boards are dominated by recruitment agencies, and an agency does not hold the sponsor licence for a role it advertises. Filtering them out is essential and brutal: a typical search drops from seven results to one.
One result with no explanation looks like a bug. So the tool returns what each stage removed:
{
"totalFromSource": 7,
"funnel": { "fromSource": 7, "afterAgencyFilter": 2, "afterSalaryAndAge": 1 },
"notes": ["5 of 7 results were recruitment agencies or job boards. ..."]
}Unpublished salaries are kept, never filtered out. Silence about pay is not evidence of low pay.
npm install && npm run buildDownload the current register (about 11 MB, updated regularly):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/register-of-licensed-sponsors-workers
Save it as data/register.csv, or point SPONSOR_REGISTER_PATH at it.
{
"mcpServers": {
"job-search": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/job-search-mcp/dist/index.js"],
"env": {
"SPONSOR_REGISTER_PATH": "/absolute/path/to/data/register.csv",
"REED_API_KEY_FILE": "/absolute/path/to/.reed-api-key"
}
}
}
}Variable | Required | Purpose |
| no | Register CSV. Defaults to |
| for | Path to a file containing the key. Preferred: the secret lives in one place and the client config holds only a path |
| alternative | The key inline. Simpler, but copies the secret into your MCP config |
| no | NDJSON application history |
No credential is ever read from a file inside the repo, and the register is gitignored.
Or with the Claude Code CLI:
claude mcp add job-search --scope user \
--env SPONSOR_REGISTER_PATH=/path/to/data/register.csv \
--env REED_API_KEY_FILE=/path/to/.reed-api-key \
-- node /path/to/job-search-mcp/dist/index.jsnpm test54 tests. Every fixture is a real posting or a real register entry that defeated an
earlier version of this code. The Reed tests mock fetch, so the suite runs offline
and costs no API quota.
Two bugs the suite caught while it was being written:
£40,000-85,000 parsed as a flat £40,000, because the second figure omits the
currency symbol. Against a salary threshold, that is the difference between "clears
it" and "does not".
An agency filter written as \brecruit\b never matched Recruitment or
Consultancy. Roughly fifty agencies passed straight through.
core() deliberately destroys information. Stripping descriptors is what makes
brand-to-legal-name matching work, and it is exactly what causes false positives. The
confidence grade prices that trade-off instead of hiding it.
Absence is not a negative. none carries a caveat saying so. The costliest error in
this domain is concluding that an unlisted employer cannot sponsor.
Read-only. The server reads the application ledger; it never writes to it. Recording an outcome is a decision a person should make.
MIT
Read the local application ledger. Use it before applying to avoid duplicate submissions to the same employer, and to see what has already been tried. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | Filter to one employer; omit for the full history |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and aptly declares 'Read-only', telling the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation. It also notes the data is a 'local' ledger. It doesn't specify edge cases (e.g., empty history) or return format, but for a simple read this is solid disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance and a behavioral flag. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete for a low-complexity tool (one optional param, no output schema). It covers purpose, use case, and read-only behavior. The only gap is that the return contents aren't described, but for this simple ledger-read it's mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional parameter is already fully documented ('Filter to one employer; omit for the full history'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, which lands at the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read the local application ledger') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_roles (searching postings) and check_sponsor (visa status). The purpose is immediately actionable and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use it ('Use it before applying to avoid duplicate submissions to the same employer, and to see what has already been tried'). It gives clear context, though it doesn't name sibling tools as explicit when-not-to-use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up whether a company holds a UK Skilled Worker sponsor licence. Returns a confidence grade, because company names collide: a match on a generic word like 'global' or 'minerva' is not evidence. A result of 'none' does NOT mean the employer cannot sponsor; it means they are not listed under that name, and the registered legal entity should be checked instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Employer name as it appears on the job posting | |
| skilledWorkerOnly | No | Restrict to the Skilled Worker route (default true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include a confidence grade, that generic-word matches are unreliable, and that a 'none' result does not rule out sponsorship and should prompt checking the registered legal entity. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a basic lookup, though it does not cover aspects like rate limits or authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences and immediately states the action, then adds caveats about confidence and interpretation. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (the lookup) comes first. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, what result to expect (confidence grade), and how to interpret negative results. It does not specify the exact response format, but the description gives enough for an agent to decide whether to call the tool and how to interpret its output. Some detail on the confidence grade scale might be missing, but overall it is quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (company and skilledWorkerOnly) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; it only implies that company names may collide but does not clarify formatting or validation beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Look up whether a company holds a UK Skilled Worker sponsor licence.' It names the resource (company) and the licence type, and the wording clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated siblings like screen_posting or application_history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. The purpose implies the use case (checking sponsorship), but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or what to use instead. However, the description does provide interpretive guidance for results, which indirectly helps the agent decide next steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Screen a posting for hard eligibility bars (citizenship, residency, existing security clearance, explicit refusal to sponsor), for seniority the body implies but the title hides, and for salary and stack. Run this before investing effort in an application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Job title | |
| description | Yes | Full posting text: description plus requirements |
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 does disclose what the tool evaluates (the explicit criteria list), which is genuinely useful context. But it never states whether the call is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects — for an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage these gaps are felt.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a tight two sentences with no filler and front-loads the core purpose and criteria. The usage directive is placed at the end, which is acceptable given the value of the criteria list, though it could arguably lead with the 'run before applying' guidance for maximum salience.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the inputs are fully covered and the screening categories are spelled out. However, the description does not indicate what the result conveys — whether it returns a verdict, a risk score, or flagged bars — leaving an agent unsure what to expect from the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both title and description fully; this earns the baseline 3. The description adds marginal semantic value by signaling why the parameters matter (the analysis centers on the posting text), but does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('a posting') with enumerated screening dimensions: hard eligibility bars (citizenship, residency, clearance, refusal to sponsor), hidden seniority, salary, and stack. This precise scope clearly differentiates it from siblings like check_sponsor, which covers only the sponsorship angle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Run this before investing effort in an application' gives explicit timing and tells the agent to call it early in the workflow. However, it does not name alternatives or state exclusions — e.g., it never routes sponsorship-only cases to check_sponsor — so the guidance stops short of full alternative differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search live UK job listings via Reed, excluding recruitment agencies and job boards, which cannot sponsor roles they merely advertise. Returns a funnel showing what each filter removed, so a small result set can be explained rather than mistaken for an error. Requires REED_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum listings to return (default 25) | |
| keywords | Yes | Search terms, e.g. "react developer" | |
| location | No | UK town or city; omit for nationwide | |
| maxAgeDays | No | Maximum posting age in days (default 30) | |
| minSalaryGBP | No | Drop roles whose published band tops out below this. Unpublished salaries are kept. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does: it states the auth requirement (REED_API_KEY), explains the funnel output (showing what each filter removed so a small result set is understandable), and notes the exclusion logic. These go beyond the schema and help the agent anticipate how the tool behaves. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but core behaviors are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and exclusions; the second explains the funnel and the auth requirement. No wasted words. The information is front-loaded: an agent gets the gist immediately, then the important behavioral details. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (a funnel) and the API key requirement. The parameters are fully documented elsewhere. The only minor gap is the precise structure of the funnel output, but that is not essential for calling the tool correctly. The description covers the key operational aspects an agent needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters are fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides; it mentions the funnel generally but doesn't tie specific parameters to outcomes. Since the schema already handles semantics, there is no deficit requiring compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Search live UK job listings via Reed') and adds a key scoping detail: exclusions of recruitment agencies and job boards, with the reason they cannot sponsor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (check_sponsor, screen_posting, application_history) whose purposes are plainly different. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and for whom.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context: it searches live UK roles on Reed and excludes entities that can't sponsor, implying it is used to find roles that can sponsor visas. It also explains the funnel output, which helps an agent interpret results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, though the tool names make alternatives obvious. The use case is well implied, if not formally stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0application_historycheck_sponsorscreen_postingsearch_rolesScored across 4 tools
Each tool addresses a clearly distinct aspect: sponsor verification, posting screening, application history, and job searching. No overlap in purpose and each has a specific trigger condition.
Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_sponsor, screen_posting, search_roles), but application_history deviates as noun_noun. The naming is still descriptive and predictable, with only minor inconsistency.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused job-search assistant, covering the core workflow without bloat. Each tool contributes a distinct function and none seem redundant.
The surface covers search, screening, sponsor checks, and local history, which addresses the primary workflow. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to update or add to the application ledger, but this may be handled externally.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Job platform for AI agents. Track tech jobs from companies that match your stack.
Analyze job listings against your resume, track applications, and generate cover letters.
AI job search MCP — fact-checked jobs, application tracker, alerts. ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor.
Search AI-native jobs, inspect application forms, and fetch free interview-prep resources.
