Reqbeat Hiring Signals

get_open_reqs

The company's current active reqs, deduped across boards -- ATS/board-only, freshness-floored. function must be a function id (as seen in prior results); a plain role name like 'engineering' is rejected with an explicit error rather than an empty result. limit is bounded: an oversized page is rejected rather than truncated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`country`	No
`function`	No
`company_id`	Yes
`plane_api_key`	No
`idempotency_key`	No

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description reveals key behaviors: deduplication across boards, data freshness (freshness-floored), and specific error handling for function and limit parameters. This goes beyond a basic 'get reqs' and is valuable given no annotations.

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?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence is dense but informative. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and 6 parameters with 0% schema descriptions, the description covers the main behavior and two key parameters. However, it omits details on country, plane_api_key, and idempotency_key, and does not describe return format.

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?

The description adds meaningful detail for two parameters (function and limit) that are not documented in the schema (0% coverage). It explains type constraints and error behavior, but covers only 2 of 6 parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'current active reqs' for a company, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings that likely handle changes, pulses, or job searches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_changes or search_jobs. It only describes parameter constraints, not usage context.

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

All Reqbeat Hiring Signals tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., get_changes/get_open_reqs/get_role all retrieve job-related data with pagination; hiring_pulse and pre_action_brief share nearly identical descriptions; is_hiring and hiring_pulse both assess company hiring status). The long, verbose descriptions provide some subtle differentiators but the functional boundaries are unclear.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming patterns are highly inconsistent: some tools use 'get_' prefixes (get_changes, get_open_reqs, get_role), others are noun phrases (hiring_pulse, is_hiring, pre_action_brief) or verb phrases (register_webhook, watch_company, write_outcome). There is no uniform verb-object or resource-based convention, making it hard to predict functionality from names.

Tool Count3/5

The server has 11 tools, which falls within the typical 3-15 range for a domain-specific API. However, several tools appear to serve redundant or narrowly-overlapping purposes (e.g., at least five tools deal with fetching job/company data), suggesting the count could be pruned without losing core functionality.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like searching jobs, retrieving role details, checking hiring status, registering webhooks, and writing outcomes. However, there are notable gaps: no webhook management (e.g., list/unregister), no explicit company profile retrieval, and no update/delete operations. This makes the surface feel incomplete for a comprehensive hiring-signals API.

Resources

Need Help?