Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emploist

by com.emploist
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update a job's application form

update_application_form

Replaces a job's application form. Published jobs need a finished form (every question labeled, every choice with options). Earlier applications keep the form they answered.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>",
      "applicationForm": "<applicationForm>"
    },
    "name": "update_application_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYesThe job's ID, from list_jobs.
applicationFormYesThe whole application form, in order. It must have exactly one each of the preset elements { type: "full-name" }, { type: "email" }, and { type: "resume" }, which have no other fields. Other elements: questions { type: "phone" | "short-answer" | "long-answer" | "yes-no", label, helpText, required }; choices { type: "single-choice" | "multiple-choice" | "dropdown", label, helpText, required, options: [{ label }] }; { type: "linear-scale", label, helpText, required, max (2–10), minLabel, maxLabel }; { type: "checkbox", text (HTML; only links), required }; { type: "heading", text }; { type: "text", text }. helpText, minLabel, and maxLabel may be empty strings. Leave out ids for new elements and options; keep the ids of existing ones (from get_job) so earlier applications' answers stay matched to them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already supplied, the description still adds non-obvious behavior: a validation gate for published jobs (every question labeled, every choice with options) and the retention rule that earlier applications keep the form they answered. That retention note usefully qualifies the "Replaces" verb against destructiveHint=false. It does not say whether the call fails atomically or what is returned, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint, then the side effect. No repetition of the title or schema content; every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with a rich, fully documented schema and full annotation coverage, this is close to complete: the caller knows the replacement semantics, the publish-time validation rule, and the historical-application behavior. The only real gap is the outcome of the call (return value, error shape) in the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a runtime constraint the schema does not encode: the form must be complete when the job is published. It does not restate element types or id-retention rules, correctly leaving those to the very detailed schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Replaces a job's application form" gives a precise verb (replace, not patch) and a precise resource, which cleanly separates it from update_job_details, rename_stage, and the read-only get_job in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly what object is being mutated and that the whole form is supplied, not a delta.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the tool for setting a form wholesale, but there is no explicit "use this when X, use Y instead" and no mention of get_job as the prerequisite read (only the parameter description in the schema points at get_job). The published-vs-draft condition is mentioned as a constraint but not as routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Emploist toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources