List all mail accounts for all users in a specific company. The company must be accessible (own company or a client).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Company ID | |
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| size | No | Page size (default 25) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the company must be accessible, which is beyond the annotations. No other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination details, error cases) are disclosed, but the safety profile is well-covered.
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?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a crucial constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 simple listing tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the resource, scope, and a key precondition. The output format is not described, but no output schema exists, so the description suffices.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description (e.g., "Company ID", "Page number", "Page size"). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the verb "list", the resource "mail accounts", and the scope "for all users in a specific company". It distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_list_user_mail_accounts and hires_list_company_mail_accounts by specifying the company-level scope with an ID.
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?
The description includes a usage condition: the company must be accessible (own company or client). This provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
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.
