Retrieve active job postings for a given employer ID from hh.ru's public search, with paging and raw JSON options.
List active vacancies for a specific employer via public vacancy search (employer_id filter). No token required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary. | |
| page | No | Page number (0-based) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a public read operation and that no authentication token is needed, which is not inferable from the schema. It does not mention default return format or pagination specifics, but those are partially covered by the parameter schema.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated separately and concisely.
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 read/list tool, the description covers the essential context: public access, no token, employer-specific filter, and active vacancies. Pagination or return shape is not explicitly described, but the schema covers the parameters that control those, so the remaining gap is minor.
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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description only reinforces the employer_id filter and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('active vacancies for a specific employer'), and the mechanism ('public vacancy search' with an employer_id filter). This clearly differentiates it from generic vacancy search/list sibling tools.
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?
It clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific employer_id and want active public vacancies. It also notes that no token is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.