employer.close_jobTransition a PUBLISHED job to CLOSED. Returns NOT_FOUND for missing or non-owner jobs and CONFLICT when the job is not in PUBLISHED.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It discloses the state transition and error conditions, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on applications, reversibility) or prerequisites like authentication.
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, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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 evaluated), the description covers the core purpose and error states. It lacks mention of prerequisites or side effects but is mostly complete for a simple state transition 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%; the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. The jobId parameter's purpose is obvious, but the description does not clarify how to obtain it or any constraints (e.g., ownership verification).
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: 'Transition a PUBLISHED job to CLOSED.' It specifies the verb (transition) and resource (job) with the exact state change, distinguishing it from siblings like archive_job or delete_job.
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 explains error conditions: NOT_FOUND for missing/non-owner jobs, CONFLICT for non-PUBLISHED status. This implicitly tells the agent when to use it (only for owned, published jobs). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.
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.