employer.list_jobsList jobs owned by the current employer account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | Optional WorkorAI MCP key for in-session authentication when the MCP client was initialized anonymously. | |
| offset | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| jobs | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| filters | 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 states ownership context but does not disclose expected behaviors such as pagination defaults, ordering, or any side effects. As a listing tool, it is assumed read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format.
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 has four parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover how parameters affect the listing or any behavioral details. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter context reduces completeness.
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 description adds no meaning to the input parameters. Despite 25% schema description coverage (only apiKey has a description), the description does not explain limit, offset, or status. The tool has four parameters with no param info in the description, which is insufficient.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'jobs' with ownership context 'owned by the current employer account', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'employer.get_job' that retrieves a single 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 implies usage for listing all jobs of the current employer but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'candidate.search_jobs' or 'employer.list_applicants'. No exclusions or context for 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.