JobMojito

Re-open interview for another attempt

request_another_interview_attempt

Destructive

[Results] Re-open a submitted interview result so the candidate can retry.

Marks a submitted (active + completed) interview result as unsuccessful so the candidate can retake it. Resets the result to draft and clears the recruiter decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conversation_id`	No	Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.
`interview_result_id`	Yes	The interview result to reopen for another attempt.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_mcp_instructions`	No	Server-issued metadata for this conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / conversation_id / description

Previous value: -"Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it."New value: +"Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echo the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / _mcp_instructions

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-issued metadata for this conversation.",
+  "properties": {
+    "conversation_id": {
+      "description": "The server-issued conversation identifier.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful detail beyond that: it marks the result unsuccessful, resets it to draft, and clears the recruiter decision — a concrete account of what state is destroyed and changed.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the action front-loaded and the state-change consequences following. The '[Results]' tag adds categorization value; nothing is padding.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. The description covers the mutation's effects well; only permission/auth prerequisites are unstated, a minor gap for a simple two-parameter tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%; interview_result_id is documented in the schema and conversation_id carries an extensive description there. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Re-open a submitted interview result') and frames the outcome ('so the candidate can retry'). The 'interview result' scoping cleanly separates it from sibling interview-level tools like create_interview, set_interview_state, and get_interview_result_details.

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?

The clause 'so the candidate can retry' implies the use case, and 'submitted (active + completed)' narrows the applicable state. But no alternative is named (e.g., vs set_interview_state) and no explicit when-not condition is given, so usage is only implied.

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.