Retrieve employer-facing statistics for a vacancy, including views, responses, and invitations, to track recruitment performance.
Get employer-facing vacancy statistics (views/responses/invitations). 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burdenable. It does disclose a key auth requirement and employer-facing scope, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe rate limits, failure behavior, or side effects, so transparency is only partially complete.
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 primary purpose is front-loaded and the token requirement is the only added necessary invocation context. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter, simple RPC-like tool, the invocation is almost fully specified by the description plus schema. However, there is no output schema and several sibling stats tools exist, so the response shape is only loosely indicated and the agent gets no selection differentiators.
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%; both vacancy_id and raw are documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond those schema descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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'), a resource ('vacancy statistics'), and a parenthetical list of stat categories ('views/responses/invitations'), so it is not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_vacancy_visitors or get_negotiations_statistics, which keeps it from a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided beyond implying applicability to a specific vacancy. It does not name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and the many sibling stats/vacancy tools; the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN note is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.