JobMojito

Copy a position

duplicate_position

Destructive

[Positions] Copy a position with its steps and settings as a new draft, optionally with a new name, country, location, openings or availability date, or into another company you manage (target_merchant_id; admins and sub-merchant operators only). Candidates and results are not copied. Needs the company's bulk position feature. Left out, interview_available_till and openings_total keep the original's; null makes the copy open (interview_available_till) or without a number of openings (openings_total).

Every argument in full, with examples: get_tool_reference.

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": {
      "position_id": "<position_id>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_position"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name of the copy. Default: the name with " (copy)".
`country`	No	Country of the copy (ISO code): candidates from that country only, and the pre-screening's position country. Default: the original's.
`llm_model`	No	Your model id, e.g. "claude-opus-4-8"; "unknown" if unsure. For analytics.
`position_id`	Yes	The position to copy (a position `id` from list_interviews).
`openings_total`	No	Openings of the copy; null = not set. Default: the original's.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation_id this server returned earlier in this conversation, unchanged, including after later user messages. Omit it if you have none. Recorded for the server developer's analytics.
`interview_location`	No	Location of the copy. Default: the original's.
`target_merchant_id`	No	Copy into another company you manage (admins and sub-merchant operators only; other callers always copy into their own company). Default: the position's company.
`interview_available_till`	No	When applications close; null = open. Default: the original's.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`position_id`	Yes
`_mcp_instructions`	No	Server-issued metadata for this conversation.
`source_position_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / position_id / description

Previous value: -"The position to copy (position_def_set.id)."New value: +"The position to copy (a position `id` from list_interviews)."

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / llm_model

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Your model id, e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\"; \"unknown\" if unsure. For analytics.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / position_id / description

Removed value: -"The copy (position_def_set.id). It is a draft: publish it with set_interview_state."

removedOutput schema / properties / source_position_id / description
```
Removed value: -"The position copied (position_def_set.id)."
```

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: the output is a new draft, candidates/results are excluded, and the cross-company copy is permission-gated. It never explains why the operation is marked destructive nor warns that repeated calls create multiple drafts, which is the main missing behavioral detail.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and its exclusions, then prerequisites, then the null/default rules – a sensible order with very little filler. The bracketed "[Positions]" tag and the closing pointer to get_tool_reference cost a little density but earn their place as a routing hint.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: prerequisites, cross-company permissions, and default-versus-null behavior. Only the destructive flag's rationale and duplicate-call behavior are left unexplained for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the omit-vs-null distinction for interview_available_till and openings_total (omitted = inherit original, null = explicitly open/unset) and by restating the target_merchant_id permission scope. The other parameters (name, country, interview_location) are only name-dropped, leaving their semantics to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Copy a position with its steps and settings as a new draft") and immediately scopes what is and isn't included ("Candidates and results are not copied"). An agent can distinguish this from duplicate_interview purely on the resource copied, without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions: needs the company's bulk position feature, and target_merchant_id is limited to admins and sub-merchant operators. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_interview or duplicate_interview, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

All JobMojito tools Inspect

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.