Retrieve the preferred negotiations sort order for a vacancy by providing its vacancy ID. Returns the ordering used for negotiations on that vacancy.
Get the preferred negotiations sort order for a vacancy. Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary. | |
| vacancy_id | Yes | Vacancy 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 must carry the behavioral burden. The description adds the auth requirement and implies a read-only retrieval via 'Get', but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what the response contains beyond the tool name itself.
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 wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the auth requirement is a necessary, non-redundant addition.
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 getter with only two fully documented parameters and an auth prerequisite, the description is nearly complete. It could add explicit details about the output shape, but the tool name and purpose convey the return concept sufficiently.
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 schema already documents both 'vacancy_id' and 'raw'. The description adds the vacancy context and the raw/full-json distinction is already covered by the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 and resource: 'Get the preferred negotiations sort order for a vacancy.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle negotiations statistics or application messages.
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 gives clear context ('for a vacancy') and states the required prerequisite ('Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.