Conecto

Hire an applicant

hiring_hire_applicant

The hire in one call instead of five: the applicant moves to Hired, joins HR as a person (their name, the job's title, department and location unless given, start_date, work_email if they have one yet, their own email kept as personal_email), their résumé goes on their HR record, and the onboarding checklist named in checklist starts. Refused if they are already in HR. $0.25. Costs $0.25 per call; nothing if it fails.

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": {
      "applicant_id": "<applicant_id>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>"
    },
    "name": "hiring_hire_applicant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`manager`	No	Their manager's person_id or work email.
`location`	No
`checklist`	No	An onboarding checklist to start.
`department`	No
`start_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD
`work_email`	No
`applicant_id`	Yes
`employment_type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description goes well beyond that: full side-effect inventory (stage change, HR person creation, résumé attachment, checklist start), field-merge rules (job title/department/location as defaults, work_email only if present, own email preserved as personal_email), and a precondition refusal case.

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 key differentiator and dense with useful detail in one long sentence plus a short cost note. The cost is stated twice ('$0.25' and 'Costs $0.25 per call; nothing if it fails'), a minor redundancy that costs it a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the call does, what it creates, what it refuses, and what it costs. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the defaulting behavior for title/department/location, the conditional nature of work_email, the personal_email mapping, and the role of checklist. It leaves manager and employment_type entirely unexplained, so not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 (hire) and resource (applicant) and immediately distinguishes itself from the multi-step alternative with 'in one call instead of five.' The enumerated effects (applicant to Hired, HR person created, résumé attached, checklist started) make it unmistakable versus siblings like hiring_move_applicant or hr_save_people.

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 'one call instead of five' framing tells the agent this is the batch/atomic path compared to incremental updates, and 'Refused if they are already in HR' gives an explicit when-not condition. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tools (hiring_move_applicant, hr_save_people, hr_start_checklist) an agent might otherwise pick.

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

All Conecto 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?