hire-overseas-mcp

Search overseas candidates

search_candidates

Read-only

Searches Hire Overseas's pool of remote professionals in the Philippines, Latin America and Africa for a role and returns up to 5 anonymized profiles in seconds. Profiles show first name, country, skills and experience; never a surname, contact detail or employer name. Each profile has a candidateRef that get_candidate_resume and request_intro accept, says whether a resume exists, and includes a link to the candidate's intro video when there is one.

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": {
      "roleTitle": "<roleTitle>"
    },
    "name": "search_candidates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skills`	No	Required skills or tools, e.g. ['QuickBooks', 'Xero']
`regions`	No	Limit to regions: ph (Philippines), latam (Latin America), africa. Omit for all.
`roleTitle`	Yes	e.g. 'Senior Bookkeeper' or 'Executive Assistant'
`description`	No	What the person will do, tools they need, hours. More detail gives better matches.
`minYearsExperience`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the result cap, the speed, the anonymization boundary (first name, country, skills, experience; never surname, contact details, or employer), and that each result indicates resume and intro-video availability. That is substantial behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then result shape, then the candidateRef linkage. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully covers what comes back: result count, anonymization rules, visible fields, candidateRef, resume existence, and intro-video link. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the results.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains skills, regions, roleTitle, description, and experience limits. The description adds only broad framing ('for a role') and no syntax, defaults, or matching-quality guidance beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Searches Hire Overseas's pool of remote professionals'), names the regions searched, and caps the return at five anonymized profiles. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that the candidateRef it returns is consumed by get_candidate_resume and request_intro.

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?

It clearly implies the search-first workflow: find candidates, then pass candidateRef to get_candidate_resume or request_intro. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or when request_intro should be preferred over a resume fetch, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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 tools Inspect

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.