Retrieve employer mail templates for a given employer ID, requiring an HH access token. Use it to fetch available templates before sending or managing employer messages.
List employer mail templates. Requires employer_id and 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.
v3.1.0Input schema / properties / employer_id / patternPrevious value: -"^\\d+$"New value: +"^[1-9]\\d*$"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 implies a read-only listing, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for a list endpoint.
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, front-loaded with the purpose followed by prerequisites. Nothing is wasted, though it is so terse that there is little structure to reward beyond efficiency.
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 single-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and auth but omits return-format and pagination context, leaving small gaps.
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 both parameters (employer_id, raw) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond noting employer_id is required, so it does not exceed that baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List employer mail templates'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling get_message_template, so it falls short of 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?
The description only lists prerequisites; it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_message_template, nor any exclusions or context of use. An agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.