Retrieve a paginated list of visitors who viewed a specific vacancy. Input the vacancy ID to see who accessed your job posting.
List visitors who viewed a vacancy. Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN.
| 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 | |
| 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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the explicit 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN' is a useful behavioral/access requirement. It does not mention response structure, ownership restrictions, or potential pagination implications, but for a simple list operation this is a reasonable baseline.
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 filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the auth requirement is the only additional necessary statement.
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 schema fully documents parameters including page, per_page, raw, and vacancy_id, so there are no parameter gaps. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify employer/ownership constraints or provide sibling routing context, leaving a clear gap in overall completeness.
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 well. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('visitors who viewed a vacancy'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like get_vacancy, get_vacancy_stats, and get_vacancy_conditions. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the resource itself is distinctive.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vacancy_stats or get_vacancy. The 'Requires HH_ACCESS_TOKEN' note is an auth prerequisite, not a routing or exclusion criterion. Among the many sibling tools, the agent gets no when-to-use vs. when-to-use-this-tool information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.