CareerProof MCP

atlas_accept_candidate_search_declaration

Record the user's acceptance of the PDPA declaration for candidate search, kept as a legal record. Call ONLY after showing the user the exact declaration text and the user explicitly agreeing in this conversation (e.g. 'I agree'); never accept on their behalf or assume agreement. Free.

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": {
      "user_agreed": "<user_agreed>",
      "declaration_version": "<declaration_version>"
    },
    "name": "atlas_accept_candidate_search_declaration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_agreed`	Yes	true only if the user explicitly agreed in this conversation
`declaration_version`	Yes	The version of the text shown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / declaration_version / description

Previous value: -"The declaration_version of the text the user was shown"New value: +"The version of the text shown"

changedInput schema / properties / user_agreed / description

Previous value: -"true only if the user explicitly agreed to the declaration text in this conversation"New value: +"true only if the user explicitly agreed in this conversation"

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context: the record is retained as a legal record and the call is free. It does not address whether repeated calls create duplicate legal records, which is the main remaining gap for a non-idempotent write.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is recorded, then the hard precondition, then the consent prohibition. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable constraint with no 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?

For a two-parameter write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the consent precondition, the legal-record purpose, and cost. Only the duplicate-call behavior of a non-idempotent write is left unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the critical semantics of user_agreed by emphasizing explicit in-conversation agreement rather than assumed consent, adding a little meaning beyond the schema's 'true only if the user explicitly agreed'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record the user's acceptance of the PDPA declaration for candidate search') plus the persistence purpose ('kept as a legal record'). The verb 'record acceptance' is clearly distinct from the sibling that retrieves the declaration, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Call ONLY after showing the user the exact declaration text and the user explicitly agreeing in this conversation') and an explicit prohibition ('never accept on their behalf or assume agreement'). The ordering relative to the retrieval tool is implied by the requirement to show the exact text first.

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

All CareerProof MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?