Skip to main content
Glama

workorai

by io.github.work0r-ai

Set review status

employer.set_review_status

Update the employer review state on an application (NEW / REVIEWING / SHORTLISTED / REJECTED / HIRED). SHORTLISTED and HIRED unlock the candidate's direct contact in subsequent list_applicants / get_applicant_detail calls. WITHDRAWN applications surface as CONFLICT.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNo
reviewStatusYes
applicationIdYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
reviewStatusNo
applicationIdNo

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses important side effects: SHORTLISTED and HIRED statuses unlock candidate contact info in subsequent calls, and WITHDRAWN applications surface as CONFLICT. This adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention authorization requirements or potential destructive outcomes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately deliver key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has an output schema and is a mutation with clear side effects, the description covers the core functionality and consequences. It lacks information on error cases or authentication, but for a simple update tool this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description lists the enum values for reviewStatus, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it provides no explanation for apiKey or applicationId parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. For a tool with three parameters, this partial coverage is adequate but not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates the employer review state on an application and lists all five allowed statuses. It is specific about the verb and resource, and the side effects distinguish it from sibling tools like employer.get_applicant_detail or employer.update_job.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as employer.update_job or employer.invite_candidate. It does not explain prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All workorai toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources