One-tap outcome report on an accepted contact: did it lead to a hire? Optional but appreciated — it's how the marketplace measures that consented outreach beats cold outreach. Values: hired | not_hired | in_progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| 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 convey that the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it's optional and used for marketplace measurement, but doesn't disclose further side effects or return behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the action and include the outcome options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description covers purpose and outcomes well, but the schema's required-field oddity (only 'outcome' required despite likely needing a contact reference) is not addressed. Also, no information about return values or post-report effects is given, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description explains the meaning of the 'outcome' parameter with its three enum values, but does not elaborate on 'code' or 'contact_id'. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates for the main parameter but leaves the other two ambiguous.
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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('report') and resource ('outcome on an accepted contact'), and enumerates the exact outcome values. It effectively distinguishes this tool from the read-only sibling tools like get_contact and search_candidates.
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?
The description provides context on when to use it ('on an accepted contact') and why it's valued ('how the marketplace measures that consented outreach beats cold outreach'). It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.
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.