Retrieve active vacancy areas for a specific employer ID to identify geographic regions where job postings are listed.
List active vacancy areas 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions only the token requirement and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, return format, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.
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 a single concise sentence, but it lacks front-loading of critical details like return behavior. It is not overly verbose, but it also does not prioritize essential information beyond the basic purpose.
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 no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned list looks like, whether pagination is needed, or any other operational details. This leaves an agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The schema descriptions cover both parameters completely (employer_id and raw). The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 the action (list) and resource (active vacancy areas) for an employer, making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_areas or get_areas_subtree, which also deal with areas.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra information is the authentication requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN), which is a prerequisite rather than a usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.