Find published candidate profiles on d.cv by keyword, skill, role, location, and availability. Returns structured candidates with handle, url, headline, skills, and open-to-work status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-50 (default 25) | |
| query | No | Keywords across name, headline, location, and skills | |
| skills | No | Alias of query; specific skills to match | |
| open_to_work | No | If true, only return candidates open to work |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only published profiles are returned and lists the output fields, but it does not mention pagination, result ordering, auth requirements, or any quirks. This is adequate for a read-only search but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, direct and informative. Every clause adds value: the search criteria, the resource, and the return fields. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple with full schema coverage, so the description covers the core purpose and return shape. However, it lacks explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling tools and does not mention pagination limits beyond the limit parameter. Acceptable but not comprehensive.
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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds a high-level mapping of search criteria but does not clarify how 'availability' maps to the open_to_work parameter. Minimal extra value beyond schema.
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 finds published candidate profiles on d.cv with specific search criteria (keyword, skill, role, location, availability). It also lists return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like get_profile (individual profile) and generic 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: when searching for candidates by the listed attributes. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, so it misses a bit on when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
