company_profileOne company's hiring: openings now, opened and closed, categories, places, and remote, type, level, salary and recency shares, at any age. companies reads several entries as one employer (Deloitte is five). Say which companies it was read as, and the other arms named.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | A find_company key or exact name. | |
| companies | No | Keys or names read as one employer; not with `company`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / companies / descriptionPrevious value: -"Not with `company`: several keys or exact names, read as one employer, such as every Deloitte entry find_company lists."New value: +"Keys or names read as one employer; not with `company`."Input schema / properties / company / descriptionPrevious value: -"A key from find_company, such as 'greenhouse:stripe', or the company's exact name."New value: +"A find_company key or exact name."Input schema / properties / companies / descriptionPrevious value: -"In place of `company`: several keys or exact names, read as one employer, such as every Deloitte entry find_company lists."New value: +"Not with `company`: several keys or exact names, read as one employer, such as every Deloitte entry find_company lists."Input schema / properties / companies / minItemsAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about aggregation via `companies` and the need to report which companies were read as one employer, but it omits return format, defaults, and any rate or permission context.
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 short and front-loads the core scope, but the second sentence is cryptic and the phrase 'other arms named' does not clearly earn its place. It is concise without being fully well-structured.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry more burden for explaining return values. It lists the hiring dimensions available, which helps, but it does not describe the response shape, defaults, or behavior when neither parameter is supplied.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds a helpful example for `companies` ('Deloitte is five') and an instruction to report constituent companies, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema for `company`.
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 first sentence clearly states the resource and the hiring dimensions available: openings, categories, places, remote/type/level/salary/recency shares. It does not explicitly name or differentiate the tool from siblings such as hiring_now or read_trends, so it falls short of the top score.
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 hints that `companies` aggregates multiple entries into one employer, but it does not say when to use `company_profile` instead of sibling tools or when to choose `company` versus `companies`. The phrase 'other arms named' is too vague to serve as actionable guidance.
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.