Retrieve all registered addresses for a specific employer using its ID. Returns compact summaries or full raw JSON to support location-based analysis.
List addresses 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. | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or what the compact summary vs raw response contains. For a read operation, this is a moderate 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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the action. It includes the auth requirement, which is useful, but could be slightly more structured with the auth note separated.
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 list tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning what the response contains (e.g., address fields) or any pagination 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 both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because 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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('addresses for an employer'), which distinguishes it from most sibling tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other employer-related list tools like get_employer_vacancies or list_employer_managers, though the resource is specific enough.
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 (listing addresses for an employer) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other employer-related tools, but the resource is clear enough that an agent can infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.