traffit_list_talent_poolsList talent pools (named groups of candidates). Scope: talent. GET /talents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1). | |
| sort | No | Sort order keyed by field name, e.g. {"created_at":"DESC"}. | |
| filter | No | Filters joined by AND, keyed by field name, e.g. {"created_at":{"value":"2026-01-01","comparison":">="}}. Custom fields work when exposed in the API. | |
| page_size | No | Records per page (default 20, max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's bar is lower. It adds only the scope and endpoint path ("Scope: talent. GET /talents."), saying nothing about pagination behavior, total counts, or whether the list is truncated at page_size — useful context that is absent.
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?
Three short fragments with the core purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing "GET /talents" is somewhat redundant with "Scope: talent" but is cheap and occasionally useful for debugging.
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?
A simple, parameterless-required, read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety. However, with no output schema, the description gives no hint about the shape of returned pool records or pagination metadata, leaving a small but real gap.
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% and the schema itself explains page, page_size (default 20, max 100), sort, and filter with examples. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List talent pools") and adds a clarifying gloss, "named groups of candidates," so an agent unfamiliar with the domain knows what a talent pool is. No sibling tool offers an overlapping capability, so no sibling differentiation is required.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb "List" and the "Scope: talent" tag; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus e.g. traffit_list_candidates or the get_* lookups. With no competing alternative for talent pools, the risk is low, but the description does no routing work.
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.