employer.archive_jobTransition a CLOSED job to ARCHIVED. Returns NOT_FOUND for missing or non-owner jobs and CONFLICT when the job is not in CLOSED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | Optional WorkorAI MCP key for in-session authentication when the MCP client was initialized anonymously. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| job | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses key error conditions (NOT_FOUND for missing/non-owner, CONFLICT if not CLOSED), but does not mention side effects, reversibility, authentication needs, or rate limits. Partial disclosure but insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
Description is one concise sentence with a second sentence for error cases. It is front-loaded and efficient, though a more structured format could improve readability.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), description need not detail return values. However, for a 2-parameter mutation tool, it lacks information on idempotency, reversibility, and the exact meaning of 'non-owner'. Moderately complete but could be enhanced.
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 50% (only apiKey has description). Description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what schema provides; jobId is not described, and error messages only indirectly reference it. No compensation for the gap.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Transition a CLOSED job to ARCHIVED'), specifies the resource (job), and distinguishes from other job lifecycle tools like close_job or delete_job by explicitly naming the target state and precondition.
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?
Description implies when to use (when a job is CLOSED and you want to archive it), but does not explicitely exclude alternatives or provide comparison with sibling tools like close_job or delete_job. The 'not in CLOSED' conflict error gives some guidance, but no direct when-not-to-use advice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.