Retrieve archived job vacancies for a given employer ID. Access historical postings for analysis or reference.
List archived vacancies 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. | |
| page | No | Page number (0-based) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page | |
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'archived' means in terms of vacancy state. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 action and resource. It includes the essential auth requirement without waste. It could add a bit more context, but it is appropriately sized.
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 list tool with a fully documented schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain what the compact summary vs raw JSON contains, nor does it clarify pagination defaults beyond the schema. The auth requirement is mentioned, which is useful, but the description could be more complete about 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the auth requirement, which is not a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List') and resource ('archived vacancies for an employer'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_hidden_vacancies and get_employer_vacancies. It could be slightly more explicit about the hh.ru context, but the resource and scope are clear.
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 for listing archived vacancies and mentions the required auth token, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_hidden_vacancies or get_employer_vacancies. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.