yardstick_reporting_searchSearch redacted recruiting reporting summaries through the public reporting API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| job_id | No | ||
| stages | No | ||
| statuses | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| role_label | No | ||
| score_band | No | ||
| stale_days | No | ||
| window_end | Yes | ||
| query_family | Yes | ||
| source_label | No | ||
| window_start | Yes | ||
| job_posting_id | No | ||
| starting_after | No | ||
| minimum_sample_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / query_family / enumPrevious value: -[
- "role_health_attention",
- "funnel_snapshot_by_role",
- "stale_opportunity_queue",
- "missing_feedback_queue",
- "candidate_pool_strength",
- "source_signals",
- "prospect_ops_summary"
-]New value: +[
+ "role_health_attention",
+ "funnel_snapshot_by_role",
+ "stale_opportunity_queue",
+ "missing_feedback_queue",
+ "candidate_pool_strength",
+ "source_signals",
+ "prospect_ops_summary",
+ "offer_performance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful fact — results are redacted and served through a public API — but says nothing about pagination behavior (starting_after/limit), rate limits, or what a result envelope looks like.
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 well-formed sentence with no padding, and the key qualifiers ('redacted', 'public reporting API') are front-loaded. However, a one-liner is under-specified for a tool with fifteen parameters and a required eight-value enum; brevity here costs more than it saves.
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?
With 15 parameters, a required enum, and no output schema, the description leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly on first try. It should at minimum enumerate the query families, the date-window format, and pagination, none of which appear.
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% across 15 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. The critical query_family enum with eight opaque values, the date format for window_start/window_end, and pagination via starting_after/limit are all left entirely to guesswork.
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: 'Search redacted recruiting reporting summaries' via the public reporting API. It is the only reporting tool among the siblings, so no sibling differentiation is needed, but it never explains what a 'reporting summary' contains or that results are organized into eight distinct query families.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no explanation of which of the eight query_family values to pick for a given question. Nothing tells the caller that window_start/window_end are mandatory or what kind of window makes sense.
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.