Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

hire-overseas-mcp

by io.github.Hire-Overseas
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request an introduction to a candidate

request_intro

Requests an introduction to a candidate returned by search_candidates. The request goes to the Hire Overseas team, who verify the candidate, confirm availability and pricing, and reply to the contact email, usually within one business day. Requires the requester's real company name and work email. One request covers one candidate.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "candidateRef": "<candidateRef>",
      "roleTitle": "<roleTitle>",
      "clientName": "<clientName>",
      "clientContact": "<clientContact>"
    },
    "name": "request_intro"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
roleTitleYes
clientNameYesCompany that wants the candidate
candidateRefYescandidateRef from search_candidates or recommend_candidates
clientContactYesThe user's work email, where Hire Overseas replies

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the downstream human workflow: the request goes to the Hire Overseas team, who verify the candidate and confirm availability and pricing, replying to the contact email within about one business day. That is exactly the kind of what-happens-next context a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent call needs; it only lacks a note on duplicate request handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, zero waste, ordered from action to mechanism to prerequisites to cardinality. The most important scoping rule sits at the front.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no result-return documentation, the description still covers who receives the request, how the response arrives, and roughly how long it takes, which is enough to call it correctly. It would be complete if it noted how the requester later checks progress, presumably via get_request_status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description reinforces clientName ('real company name') and clientContact ('work email where Hire Overseas replies'), both already described in the schema. The optional message and roleTitle parameters are never mentioned, so no compensating meaning is added for the undocumented portion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Requests an introduction to a candidate') plus the scope constraint 'One request covers one candidate'. It also anchors provenance to search_candidates, so an agent can locate it in the workflow without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly conditions use on having a candidate from search_candidates and states the prerequisite of a real company name and work email, plus the one-candidate-per-request limit. It stops short of telling the agent when NOT to use it, e.g. to check an existing request (get_request_status) or to re-request the same candidate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All hire-overseas-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources