Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Selenios

by com.selenios.back
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove application form field

remove_screening_form_field
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one field from the application form of a job position. Candidates are no longer asked it. Answers already submitted are kept on their applications but are no longer shown on the form or evaluated. fieldName is the key in configuration.formSchema.properties of the position's screening configuration, and fieldLabel is that property's title, verbatim; a label that does not match is rejected. The base fields firstName, lastName and email cannot be removed. On a professional application, linkedinUrl or resumeFile must stay required: removing the only required one of the two is rejected. The response reports criteriaVersionChanged: when true, the removed field was part of what candidates were scored against.

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": {
      "jobDescriptionId": "<jobDescriptionId>",
      "fieldName": "<fieldName>",
      "fieldLabel": "<fieldLabel>"
    },
    "name": "remove_screening_form_field"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldNameYesSchema key of the field, from configuration.formSchema.properties
fieldLabelYesThe title of that property, verbatim. Shown to the user on the confirmation card; a label that does not match the field is rejected.
jobDescriptionIdYesThe job position ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses exactly what destruction means: answers already submitted are kept but no longer shown or evaluated, and the form stops asking the field. It also states rejection conditions and explains the criteriaVersionChanged response, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then moves through candidate impact, identifier requirements, validation constraints, and the response. Every sentence carries operational information, and the density is justified for a destructive tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, validation failures, protected fields, cross-field requirements, and the meaningful response field. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 already 100%, and the schema descriptions explain fieldName, fieldLabel, and jobDescriptionId. The description reinforces that fieldName is a schema key and fieldLabel must match the title verbatim, but mostly repeats rather than adding new parameter semantics, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: remove one field from a job position's application form. It clearly distinguishes this operation from add_screening_form_field, update_screening_form_field, and reorder_screening_form_fields by describing permanent removal and its candidate-facing effects.

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?

It clearly establishes when this tool applies and gives explicit exclusion cases: base fields cannot be removed, and on professional applications either linkedinUrl or resumeFile must remain required. It does not explicitly direct agents to update_screening_form_field for modifications, but the removal-specific constraints make the intended use clear.

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

All Selenios toolsInspect
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.

Resources