employer.list_applicantsList the live (APPLIED) applicants on one of the employer's jobs. The candidate showcase + interview overallScore/summary are always returned; contact fields are only included when the application is SHORTLISTED or HIRED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| jobId | No | ||
| applicants | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the candidate showcase and interview scores are always returned, and that contact fields are conditional on SHORTLISTED/HIRED status. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 primary action, and every clause adds behavioral context. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no enums, output schema present), and the description covers the key conditional return behavior. However, it omits any mention of pagination, result limits, or how jobId is specified, leaving minor gaps.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not explain apiKey or the jobId format; it only references 'one of the employer's jobs'. This fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 specifies a clear action ('List') and target ('live (APPLIED) applicants on one of the employer's jobs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like employer.get_applicant_detail (single applicant) and employer.list_invitations (invitations).
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?
It provides context by explicitly scoping to 'live (APPLIED)' applicants, but does not name alternative tools for other statuses or mention when to avoid this tool. The conditional field behavior implies the tool is appropriate for APPLIED applications, but no explicit exclusion is given.
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.