Activate selected job boards for a job. Sets boards to activation queue state. Use for controlled multi-board publishing workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job ID (numeric) or alias | |
| boards | No | Array of board identifiers to activate (e.g. ['indeed', 'linkedin']) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral insight by stating 'Sets boards to activation queue state', indicating that the activation is not immediate but queued. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true) which only hint at mutability and openness. No contradictions with 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?
The description consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and state. Every sentence adds value: first defines the operation, second clarifies the state and use case. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool is a straightforward mutation, and the description covers the core purpose and behavior. No output schema exists, but the return value is not critical for a publish action. Given the presence of annotations and sibling tools, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it. It could mention success/failure indicators but is still adequate.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'selected job boards' and 'boards to activation queue state', but the schema already describes the parameters clearly. No additional format or constraints provided.
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 tool activates selected job boards for a job, using the verb 'activate' and specifying the resource 'job boards'. It also distinguishes from siblings like hires_batch_publish_to_boards by mentioning 'controlled multi-board publishing workflows' and setting boards to an 'activation queue state', which implies a staged process.
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 gives some context with 'Use for controlled multi-board publishing workflows', suggesting it is for deliberate multi-board activation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like the batch version or the single removal tool. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.
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.
