get_apply_run_statusLive progress of the latest run: running or not (from a heartbeat, not a status claim), processed of total, the job being worked on now, confirmed, needs review, skipped, closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the heartbeat detail, 'from a heartbeat, not a status claim', which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations state. No contradiction.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose, then lists the exact status data included. Every part earns its place and there is 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?
Given there is no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the main expected signals: running status, processed counts, current job, and result states. It does not specify exact response formatting or behavior when no latest run exists, but this is a low-complexity status tool so the description is largely sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers everything needed, so there is nothing for the description to add. This matches the baseline for no-parameter tools.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it gets the apply run status. The description enumerates concrete data it returns (processed of total, current job, confirmed, needs review, skipped, closed), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_run_history.
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?
Clearly implies the use case is checking the live status of the latest apply run. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer list_run_history or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.
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.
Tool purposes are generally distinct and well-described, but a few clusters overlap in function: answer_screening_question vs save_answer both write to the answer book, get_my_profile vs get_account both report plan status, and the CV preview/sent-CV/base-CV tools could be confused. The detailed descriptions mitigate most misselection, so this is only a minor issue.
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like list_, get_, update_, create_, delete_, and start_/stop_. Minor deviations such as login, describe_what_i_want, and the get_my_* vs list_* alternation prevent a perfect score, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
49 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and will burden agent tool selection even though many are legitimate single-purpose operations. Several groups could be consolidated—billing links, API-key management, and the CV PDF family—without hurting clarity.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation/auth, profile and CV, targeting, matching, apply runs, screening answers, tracking, billing, export, and deletion. Minor gaps remain, such as no application-level detail/withdrawal endpoint and no direct way to save a parsed CV without re-uploading, but agents can work around them.