employer.list_invitationsList the pending (INVITED) candidates on one of the employer's jobs — candidates who have been invited but have not yet accepted or declined.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job to list invitations for | |
| apiKey | No | Employer MCP API key |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| jobId | No | ||
| invitations | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description clarifies that only pending invitations are returned. It adds context beyond the name by specifying 'INVITED' status. No mention of permissions or limitations, but the main behavior is clear.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no filler. Efficiently communicates purpose and scope.
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 output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is adequate. It could mention expected return format or alternatives, but is sufficient for a list operation.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the jobId parameter is obvious, and apiKey is not explained. Satisfactory but not improved.
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 lists pending (INVITED) candidates for a specific job. It distinguishes from siblings like candidate.accept_invitation and employer.cancel_invitation by specifying it only retrieves pending 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the description implies it's for viewing pending invitations, and sibling names indicate alternatives for accepting, declining, or canceling.
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.