List candidates who are currently open to work, optionally filtered by skills. Best when the user wants people actively looking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-50 (default 25) | |
| skills | No | Optional skills/role to filter by |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the additional context 'currently open to work' clarifies the specific subset being returned. It does not describe response format or pagination, but the simple nature of the tool makes this adequate.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately understandable.
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 the simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, optional filter, and usage timing. It does not specify return fields, but for a simple list tool the tool name and description imply the result set adequately.
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 input schema already covers both parameters (limit, skills) with full descriptions. The tool description adds no new semantic value beyond restating that filtering by skills is optional, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List candidates who are currently open to work' with an optional skills filter. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_talent and search, which are broader in scope.
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?
The phrase 'Best when the user wants people actively looking' provides clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. This is a clear context signal without full when/when-not detail.
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.
There is significant overlap between tools: 'search' and 'search_talent' both search profiles with similar functionality, and 'fetch' and 'get_profile' both retrieve a full profile by handle. This creates ambiguity about which tool to use for a given task.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use bare verbs ('fetch', 'search'), some use verb-noun ('get_profile', 'save_search'), and one uses a multi-word phrase ('get_open_to_work'). The pair 'search' and 'search_talent' also breaks any consistent pattern.
Seven tools is a well-scoped number for a talent search server. It's not overwhelming or too sparse, and each tool has a place in the candidate discovery workflow.
The tool set covers the core workflow: searching, retrieving full profiles, filtering open-to-work candidates, adding to shortlists, and saving searches. However, the duplicate fetch/get_profile pair suggests one could be replaced with something like listing or managing shortlists.
