Skip to main content
Glama

workorai

by io.github.work0r-ai

Withdraw application

candidate.withdraw_application

Withdraw the candidate's active application to a job (APPLIED -> WITHDRAWN). Idempotent (withdrawing again succeeds). Returns NOT_APPLIED when there is no active application (e.g. only an open invitation, or already declined), and NOT_FOUND when no application exists for the job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYes
apiKeyNoOptional WorkorAI MCP key for in-session authentication when the MCP client was initialized anonymously.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
statusNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the idempotent nature, state transition, and specific error conditions (NOT_APPLIED, NOT_FOUND). It does not mention side effects like notifications or authorization requirements, but covers the core behavioral traits.

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?

The description is extremely concise, using two sentences plus clear condition statements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description covers the main action and edge cases well. It lacks explanation of the jobId parameter, but overall provides sufficient context for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; the jobId parameter is not explained, and the apiKey already has a schema description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the verb (withdraw), the resource (active application), and the state transition (APPLIED -> WITHDRAWN). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the action and error conditions that relate to other states (e.g., NOT_APPLIED for invitations).

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?

The description provides clear context by explaining idempotency and return cases, which implicitly guide when to use the tool (e.g., for active applications only). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., declining an invitation).

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

All workorai toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool in the candidate and employer sets targets a distinct action or resource with no ambiguity. Tools like `search_candidates_by_query` and `search_candidates_for_job` have clearly different purposes, and all other tools perform unique operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern with snake_case action names. The naming is uniform across both candidate and employer tools, using standard verbs like get, list, create, update, delete, search, set, etc.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools cover two distinct user roles (candidate and employer) with separate workflows. While above the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a specific purpose and the count is justified for a hiring platform's API surface.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface provides comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle operations for jobs, applications, invitations, and candidate searches for both roles. Minor gaps like candidate profile update tools are likely handled outside the MCP server, so the set feels nearly complete.

Resources