Skip to main content
Glama

Personio Recruiting Ops Plane

by app.vercel.ats-ops-control-plane-gateway

upload_recruiting_application_document

Upload a document (for example a CV) to Personio so it can be attached to a new recruiting application. Provide the file as base64 content or a fetchable URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoSet true to run this live upload. Ignored when dry_run=true.
dry_runNoPreview the action without sending it.
file_urlNoPublic or signed URL the document can be fetched from. Provide this or file_base64.
file_nameNoFilename to send to Personio (recommended with file_base64).
query_jsonNoAdditional documented query parameters, including bracketed filter keys.
file_base64NoDocument contents as base64 (a data: prefix is allowed). Provide this or file_url.
headers_jsonNoAdditional request headers for endpoints that require vendor-specific headers.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutation side effects, permission requirements, or the effect of confirm/dry_run parameters. Return value is not described.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters including nested objects and a confirm/dry_run pattern, the description lacks context on workflow, prerequisites, and how the document attaches to a new application. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema carries the load. The description adds the hint about providing base64 or URL, which is helpful but not extensive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Upload', the resource (a document to Personio attached to a recruiting application), and gives an example (CV). It distinguishes from sibling tools as no other tool directly uploads documents.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides guidance on how to provide the file (base64 or URL). It implicitly indicates when to use (for uploading documents to recruiting applications), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

All Personio Recruiting Ops Plane toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target specific entities and actions, but the generic api_request tool overlaps with many endpoints, potentially causing confusion. Additionally, similar-sounding tools like get_application and list_applications are clearly distinct, so the impact is limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_recruiting_application, list_applications, get_candidate). There are no mixed conventions or ambiguous abbreviations, making the naming predictable and clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 30 tools, the server covers a broad domain including applications, candidates, jobs, webhooks, and organizational entities. While slightly heavy, each tool serves a distinct purpose and the count is justified given the scope.

Completeness3/5

The tool set is read-heavy, with get and list operations for most entities, but missing update and delete for core recruiting resources (applications, candidates). This gaps agents from performing full lifecycle management without resorting to the generic api_request.

Resources