employer.publish_jobTransition a DRAFT job to PUBLISHED. Returns NOT_FOUND for missing or non-owner jobs and CONFLICT when the job is not in DRAFT.
| 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?
The description discloses core behavior (state transition) and specific error outcomes, but with no annotations, it omits details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility.
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, direct sentence plus essential error information—no extraneous content, perfectly concise.
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 covers functionality and errors fairly well, but lacks parameter details.
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 does not elaborate on the 'jobId' parameter beyond implicit mention in error cases, and the schema already covers 'apiKey'. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning.
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 explicitly states the action ('Transition a DRAFT job to PUBLISHED') using a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'employer.archive_job' or 'employer.close_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 includes error conditions (NOT_FOUND, CONFLICT) that clarify when the tool is applicable, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'employer.update_job'.
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.