Semata

Get hiring report

get_hiring_report

Read-only

Outcome-based hiring report for the selected workspace, computed from recorded decisions and activity events, never from scores or the screening gate. cohort = applications created in the period by current outcome; decisions = outcome events recorded in the period. Funnel, stage age and time to hire use recorded history only and are marked unavailable or partial when it is missing; applications created before outcome tracking began are legacy and excluded from funnel and stage age. Rates are withheld for small cohorts.

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": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>"
    },
    "name": "get_hiring_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`roleIds`	No
`sources`	No
`timezone`	No		UTC
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace id returned by list_workspaces. Use 'personal' for the personal workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, yet the description adds real operational context: funnel and stage-age metrics are marked unavailable or partial when history is missing, legacy pre-tracking applications are excluded, and rates are suppressed for small cohorts. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements or the shape/cost of the response.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core semantics (outcome-based, computed from recorded events) and no filler sentences; each clause carries distinct information. The sentences are long and dense, and four separate caveats in a single paragraph make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does a good job describing what the report contains and how missing-data cases are surfaced, which is the main risk for this tool. The remaining gap is filter behavior (roleIds, sources, timezone effects on date boundaries), which is undocumented in both structured fields and prose.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate more than it does. It does add genuine meaning for the range filters by distinguishing "cohort = applications created in the period" from "decisions = outcome events recorded in the period", but roleIds, sources, and timezone are never mentioned in either schema or description.

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 resource and computation basis ("outcome-based hiring report for the selected workspace, computed from recorded decisions and activity events") and enumerates the report's sections: funnel, stage age, time to hire, rates. The clause "never from scores or the screening gate" implicitly separates it from get_screening_report and get_candidate_report, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the analytics/outcome view rather than the screening view, and the exclusion of scores/screening gate hints at when it is not appropriate. But no sibling is named and there is no explicit "use this instead of X when Y" routing.

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

All Semata 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?