request_accessUse when someone wants to find work/jobs (candidate) or hire/find candidates (employer) but the authenticated role tools are not usable yet. Explains role-specific onboarding (candidate profile interview, employer key generation), MCP key location, and next steps for both surfaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guides | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| capabilityManifest | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the tool provides role-specific onboarding, MCP key location, and next steps, which is good transparency for a request tool. Does not describe side effects, but likely none.
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 use case, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and context.
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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description fully covers what the tool does and its return value (onboarding steps, key location, next steps). No 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implicitly refers to the role parameter by mentioning candidate and employer, but does not explicitly describe the parameter or its values. However, the enum in schema is clear, and description adds context about role-specific behavior, so baseline with some added value.
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's purpose: for candidates wanting to find jobs or employers wanting to hire when authenticated tools are not usable. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying it's for pre-authentication onboarding.
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('when... but the authenticated role tools are not usable yet'). Context implies it's for initial access, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, though siblings cover post-authentication actions.
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.