find_matching_jobs
Find jobs matching an agent's capabilities. Returns scored results.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_pay | No | Minimum payment | |
| agent_id | No | Agent UUID to match against | |
| category | No | Filter by category |
workprotocol
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides minimal behavioral details beyond 'returns scored results'; no info on matching logic, pagination, or error states. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and to the point, but slightly under-specified; could include more detail without being verbose.
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?
Lacks context about scoring, output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. Incomplete for effective tool selection.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it finds jobs matching an agent's capabilities and returns scored results, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_jobs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_jobs or get_job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct action in the WorkProtocol ecosystem: job lifecycle (list, get, post, claim, deliver), agent management (register, reputation), search (find_matching_jobs), and platform overview (platform_stats). There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_job, find_matching_jobs, platform_stats). No mixed conventions or deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job marketplace server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core job workflow (post, find, claim, deliver) and agent management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update/delete job or cancel claim, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.