Register a webhook URL for job-related events. Core step for outbound integration setup. URL must be HTTPS. Returns a signing_secret once — store it to verify the x-hires-signature-v2 header on incoming deliveries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job ID (numeric) or alias | |
| url | Yes | Webhook destination URL. Must be HTTPS and point to a public host (no localhost / private / link-local IPs). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it's a creation action, returns a one-time signing_secret, and requires storage for verification. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences; front-loaded with purpose, then importance, then critical post-creation detail. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool without output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and return value (signing_secret) with usage instruction, making it complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating the HTTPS requirement already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Register' and resource 'webhook URL for job-related events', distinguishing it from similar tools like hires_create_webhook. The context 'Core step for outbound integration setup' adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description indicates when to use (outbound integration setup) and mentions URL requirement (HTTPS). It implicitly differentiates from general webhook creation but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to specific entity and action combinations. However, with 133 tools, there is some overlap (e.g., multiple ways to move applications) and similar-sounding operations (e.g., batch_remove_tags vs remove_candidate_tag) that could cause confusion. The detailed descriptions help but the sheer number increases ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'hires_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case. Verbs are descriptive (create, list, get, delete, update, batch) and nouns match the domain entities (candidate, application, job, etc.). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
133 tools is excessive for a typical server scope. While a full-featured ATS requires many operations, this count suggests insufficient aggregation. Tools for similar entities (e.g., multiple update/delete variants) could be consolidated. The high number overwhelms the tool surface and increases complexity.
The tool set covers core CRUD operations for major entities (candidates, applications, jobs, companies, users, messages, forms, etc.) plus batch operations, webhooks, and advanced features like AI scoring and nurture campaigns. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct reporting/analytics tools), but most workflows can be executed.
