List all interviews for a candidate across all applications. Useful for timeline views and scheduling conflict detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Candidate ID (integer) or alias (string). | |
| page | No | Page number (1-based). | |
| size | No | Number of items per page. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. Description adds 'across all applications' scope and use cases, but does not detail pagination behavior, ordering, or whether only upcoming interviews are returned. Adds some but not rich behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope, no redundant words. Efficient and clear.
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 read-only list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and use case adequately. Lacks hint about return fields (e.g., date, status) but still informative enough for agent decision.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (id, page, size). Description only ties id to candidate, no additional meaning for page/size. Baseline 3 as description does not add value beyond 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?
Clearly states 'List all interviews for a candidate across all applications' with specific verb and resource, and provides use cases (timeline views, scheduling conflict detection). Distinguishes from sibling 'hires_list_interviews' which likely lists interviews without candidate filter.
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?
Provides usage context: 'for timeline views and scheduling conflict detection'. Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
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.
