Check the status of a contact request you sent: sent (awaiting), accepted (the candidate shared their contact — see shared_contact, and expect their intro email quoting the code), or declined. Identify it by contact_id or code. Also shows any hire outcome either side reported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| contact_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable context: status meanings (sent/accepted/declined), consequences of acceptance, and an additional hire outcome feature. It doesn't describe edge cases or return format, but the addition is substantive.
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, tightly packed with information: purpose, statuses, identification method, and additional hire outcome. No redundancy; front-loaded with the primary verb+resource.
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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior, possible outcomes, and additional context (hire outcome, intro email). It doesn't address error conditions, but that's not critical for basic usage. The reference to shared_contact provides useful cross-tool context.
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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It states either contact_id or code can be used for identification, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats or specify whether exactly one is required, leaving some ambiguity.
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 specifies the exact action ('Check the status of a contact request you sent'), defines the possible statuses, and differentiates from siblings like request_contact and report_contact_outcome by focusing on status checking. It also clarifies how to identify the request (by contact_id or code).
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?
It clearly implies when to use (after sending a contact request) and provides context for interpreting 'accepted' status (see shared_contact, expect intro email). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous compared to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: subscription, candidate search, detailed view, contact management, stats, docs, new candidates, watchlist, outcome reporting, and saving. No two tools overlap in purpose; the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_subscription, get_candidate, search_candidates). The verbs vary as needed for different actions, maintaining a predictable structure.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a candidate sourcing platform. It covers search, detailed viewing, contact, watchlist management, subscription, and documentation without being excessive or too sparse.
Core workflows are covered: search, view, request contact, report outcome, save to watchlist. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a remove-from-watchlist tool or a way to cancel a contact request, but these do not severely hinder the main use case.