search_candidatesPeople open to introductions for a post. Anonymous cards scored by the same formula; the person says yes or no to each introduction. A ready-to-read summary is in say.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | One of the employer's live post ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context (anonymous cards, uniform scoring, mutual opt-in where the person says yes/no), but the closing 'A ready-to-read summary is in `say`' is cryptic and unexplained, and no auth/permission context is given.
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?
Three short sentences with the resource definition front-loaded, which is good. However, the third sentence references an output field 'say' that is not present or explained anywhere, so it does not clearly earn its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden to explain returns; it mentions anonymous cards and a 'say' summary but leaves 'say' undefined and the returned card structure unexplained. The annotations cover safety, so the core gaps are around output and the search semantics.
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% and there is only one parameter (post), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 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 conveys the resource (people open to introductions for a post) but never states what the operation actually does as a verb+object, and the name 'search_candidates' implies filtering/search behavior the text never describes. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_people or list_applicants. Adequate but vague about the actual 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent people/applicant tools (find_people, list_applicants, get_applicant), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer usage entirely from context.
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.