employer.get_applicant_transcriptVerbatim interview transcript for one applicant. Ownership-only gate (same as the UI Download button — no SHORTLISTED/HIRED requirement). Returns an empty array when the source interview never produced turns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| applicationId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| transcript | No | ||
| applicationId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: returns an empty array when the source interview never produced turns. This adds useful edge-case information but does not cover other aspects like rate limits or idempotency.
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 two sentences with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, permissions, and edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, one required) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete. It covers the return value, permissions, and a specific edge case. The output schema handles return-value details per rubric rules.
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 0%, yet the description only implicitly mentions the applicationId parameter ('for one applicant') and provides no explanation for the apiKey parameter. The schema gives parameter names, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the names imply.
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 tool retrieves a 'verbatim interview transcript for one applicant,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (transcript). It distinguishes from sibling tools like employer.get_applicant_detail, which returns broader applicant info, and employer.get_candidate_evidence for evidence data.
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 the 'ownership-only gate' permission requirement and notes that it behaves like the UI Download button with no SHORTLISTED/HIRED requirement. This provides context on when the tool is accessible but does not explicitly list alternatives or when to avoid using 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.