Ask whether a company is ACTUALLY hiring, not just whether it has jobs listed. Returns a verdict on the board -- actively_hiring, still_open, gone_quiet or likely_abandoned -- with the age of the newest posting, the median role age, and how many reqs have sat open over 90 days and over a year. This is the check that tells you whether an application or a sales approach is worth the time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Company name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return verdicts, the age metrics, and the 90-day/year thresholds, giving an agent a solid understanding of what the tool computes and returns.
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 the core distinction, followed by concrete output details and a clear use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the verdict values, the metrics returned, and when to use it. It could add a bit more context on how to interpret each verdict, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.
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 the schema already documents the only parameter ('company'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but it does not need to; this is the baseline case where the schema carries the weight.
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 states a specific verb ('Ask whether') and resource ('a company'), and immediately differentiates itself from tools that only check for listed jobs. The verdict categories make the tool's function unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like search_jobs.
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 clear context: use this check to decide whether an application or sales approach is worth the time. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 answers a clearly distinct question: company-specific verdict, fresh boards, quiet boards, market-level stats, job search, and change tracking. There is no meaningful overlap between tool purposes.
Four tools follow a verb-first pattern (check_company, find_fresh_boards, find_quiet_boards, search_jobs), but hiring_stats is a noun phrase and whats_changed is question-style. The names are readable but not fully predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a hiring intelligence server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core workflows: searching jobs, evaluating a single company, surfacing fresh versus quiet boards, viewing market stats, and monitoring changes. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the stated purpose.