Retrieve departments for a specified employer ID to organize vacancies and resumes by company structure. Use this to map internal teams and filter hiring data.
List departments for an employer. Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary. | |
| employer_id | Yes | Employer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and 'List' implies a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, error behavior, or the impact of the raw parameter.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('List departments for an employer.') and the auth requirement is stated succinctly. Every word contributes.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers core purpose and auth, but it does not explain return values or behavior of the compact summary vs raw output beyond what the schema states. At a minimum it is adequate, but with no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would be expected.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; 'employer' is present in the tool name, and the schema documents employer_id and raw. No additional semantic value is contributed.
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 a specific action and resource: 'List departments for an employer.' It is unambiguous and the verb 'List' plus the resource 'departments' makes the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_employer_vacancy_areas or list_employer_addresses.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the auth token, and no mention of when not to use it. 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN' is a constraint, not usage guidance. Sibling tools with overlapping employer-scoped concerns are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.