close_postClose a job post. Close one of the employer's own job posts, at their request. It stops showing in search and stops taking new applications; the applicants already in, and their answers, are kept. A ready-to-read summary is in say.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description reconciles that by specifying exactly what changes (stops appearing in search, stops accepting applications) and what is preserved (existing applicants and their answers). It also points to the `say` field, which substitutes for a missing output schema, so an agent knows both the state impact and where the human-readable result lives.
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?
Front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the output field; every sentence carries information. Minor redundancy in the opening two clauses ('Close a job post. Close one of the employer's own job posts'), which repeat the verb.
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 single-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers trigger, state effects, data retention, and the summary field. It stops short of stating reversibility (whether a closed post can be reopened) or repeat-call behavior, relevant given idempotentHint=false.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so `id` is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, source, or lookup hints for the post id, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Close a job post') and adds ownership scope ('one of the employer's own job posts'), which separates it from candidate-side or read-only post tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling (update_post), so an agent must infer that 'close' is a distinct lifecycle action.
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?
'At their request' gives a conversational trigger for when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use update_post to edit, or reject_applicant for individuals). Usage is implied rather than routed.
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.