Retrieve the negotiation history for a specific resume from the employer's perspective. Use this to track candidate interactions, review application statuses, and analyze engagement on hh.ru.
Get negotiation history for a resume (employer view). Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary. | |
| resume_id | Yes | Resume 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 full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and the employer perspective, but it does not describe what the returned history contains, whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a data-fetching tool, this is a notable gap.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the auth requirement. It is efficient, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate, but it only covers the basic purpose and auth. It does not explain the shape of the response, the meaning of the 'raw' parameter's effect, or any filtering/pagination behavior. An agent would need to inspect the schema and possibly make assumptions about the return format.
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 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Get') and resource ('negotiation history for a resume'), and clarifies the perspective ('employer view'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_negotiations_statistics or get_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 implies usage context by specifying 'employer view' and requiring HH_ACCESS_TOKEN, which suggests it is for employer-side operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_negotiations_statistics or get_application_messages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.