Skip to main content
Glama

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
interview_result_idYesThe interview result to reopen for another attempt.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description elaborates on the destructive actions: marking unsuccessful, resetting to draft, and clearing the recruiter decision. This adds context beyond annotations about the specific state changes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by detailed effects. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the preconditions (submitted+completed) and the effects. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. It is sufficiently complete for a mutation tool with clear annotations.

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%, and the single parameter 'interview_result_id' is described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reopens a submitted interview result for another attempt. It specifies the action, resource, and effects (marks unsuccessful, resets to draft, clears decision), distinguishing it from siblings like set_interview_state.

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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool: for submitted (active+completed) interview results. It implies preconditions but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. This is clear enough for most agents.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions, with clear category prefixes like [Interviews], [Results], and [Admin]. A few pairs could be confused—create_interview vs. create_interview_from_questions and update_interview vs. set_interview_state—but the descriptions do enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, generate_*. The main deviation is jobmojito_configuration, which is a noun phrase rather than an action verb, and a few longer names like request_another_interview_attempt break the clean pattern slightly.

Tool Count2/5

With 29 tools, this server is above the 25+ threshold and places a significant navigation burden on an agent. The tools are organized into coherent domains, but several admin/merchant and results tools could likely be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The core interview lifecycle is well covered: create, read, update, list, state changes, result retrieval, and report generation. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete operations for interviews or catalogue directories, no candidate management beyond listing/registration, and no explicit result-decision tool.