Save a talent search to your d.cv account so you can re-run it later. Requires your d.cv API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | A name for the saved search | |
| query | Yes | The search text to save | |
| open_to_work | No | Whether the search is limited to open-to-work |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool saves data (a write operation) and requires an API key. However, it does not explain side effects such as whether the search is overwritten if the same name is used, or what the response contains.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a necessary prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no extraneous information.
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?
For a relatively simple save operation with fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is not critical here, though it could mention what the tool returns or whether names must be unique.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, query, open_to_work) already explained in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action: 'Save a talent search to your d.cv account' with the purpose of re-running later. It distinguishes from siblings like search and search_talent by focusing on saving rather than executing a search.
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 description implies when to use this tool: when you want to persist a search for future use. It mentions the prerequisite of the d.cv API key, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternative tools.
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.
