yardstick_interview_sessions_scorecard_submitSubmit an interview-session scorecard with explicit ratings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ratings | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| overall_notes | No | ||
| overall_rating | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| interviewer_user_id | Yes | ||
| interview_session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / ratings / items / properties / item_type / enumAdded value: +[
+ "outcome",
+ "competency",
+ "skill",
+ "recommendation"
+]Input schema / properties / ratings / items / properties / item_type / minLengthRemoved value: -1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds only 'explicit ratings' and does not explain what may be overwritten, idempotency behavior, or submission side effects.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is far too sparse for a complex nested mutation with 7 parameters. The concision is under-specification rather than appropriate brevity.
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?
The tool has a nested ratings array, multiple required fields, destructive/idempotent annotations, and no output schema. One sentence is completely inadequate to convey how to construct a valid submission or what effects it has.
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 0% and there are 7 parameters. The description references ratings generally but gives no meaning for required fields, nested rating objects, item_type values, rating bounds, or idempotency/request identifiers.
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 (submit) and resource (interview-session scorecard) and notes that ratings are explicit. It does not differentiate from sibling scorecard or final-recommendation tools, but the core action is clear.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention session state, interviewer assignment, or related sibling tools such as final recommendation recording.
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.