Skip to main content
Glama
AndreyTepaykin

hh-mcp

by AndreyTepaykin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_employer_manager

Retrieve a single employer manager by ID from hh.ru, or resolve the authenticated account's manager from /me when employer or manager IDs are omitted.

Instructions

Get a single employer manager by id. employer_id/manager_id of the authenticated account can be omitted (resolved from /me). Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoReturn the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary.
manager_idNoId of the authenticated employer/manager; omit to resolve from /me. Do not pass 0.
employer_idNoId of the authenticated employer/manager; omit to resolve from /me. Do not pass 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv3.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / employer_id / description
      Previous value: -"Employer ID"New value: +"Id of the authenticated employer/manager; omit to resolve from /me. Do not pass 0."
    • changedInput schema / properties / employer_id / pattern
      Previous value: -"^\\d+$"New value: +"^[1-9]\\d*$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / manager_id / description
      Previous value: -"Manager ID"New value: +"Id of the authenticated employer/manager; omit to resolve from /me. Do not pass 0."
    • changedInput schema / properties / manager_id / pattern
      Previous value: -"^\\d+$"New value: +"^[1-9]\\d*$"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "employer_id",
-  "manager_id"
-]
  2. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add two useful behavioral facts: an auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and the /me fallback for omitted ids. It does not describe error behavior, permissions scope, or what the compact summary contains versus raw, though the raw flag is covered by the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no waste, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the id-resolution and auth details. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-entity get with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, how ids resolve, and the auth prerequisite. Return-shape ambiguity is minor given the schema exposes a raw/compact toggle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the omit-to-resolve-from-/me behavior and the 'Do not pass 0' constraint. The description restates the id-omission behavior rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single employer manager by id'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_employer_managers. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides useful context that employer_id/manager_id may be omitted and resolved from /me, which tells the agent how to call it for the authenticated account. However, it never states when to use this tool versus list_employer_managers or get_employer, leaving the choice to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools