list_supported_rolesThe catalogue of roles and functions Armasourcing places, plus the managed contact center offering. Use it to confirm a role is supported and to help a user name the role they actually need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds the content scope (roles/functions plus managed contact center) but no additional behavioral traits beyond that, such as return format or pagination. This meets the baseline for a simple read-only list.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and provide usage guidance. No filler or repetition, every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool lists and when to use it. It does not describe the output format, but for a simple catalogue of roles this is not a significant gap. The sibling tools further clarify its role as a reference lookup.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because none exist.
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 lists the catalogue of roles and functions Armasourcing places, including the managed contact center offering. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_talent_pool by being a reference catalogue.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use it to confirm a role is supported and to help a user name the role they actually need.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is sufficiently clear.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect: booking, terms, process, supported roles, and talent pool search. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them; even get_engagement_terms and get_hiring_process are clearly separated as contract vs. process.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_*, list_*, search_*. The verbs are specific and match the action, and the nouns clearly identify the object. This makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for a sales/consulting server. Each tool serves a needed function in the user journey without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from exploring roles and checking talent availability to understanding terms and booking a call. No critical gaps exist; the deliberate omission of individual candidates and pricing is handled by the tools' descriptions and is not a missing feature.