Bullhorn MCP Agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_recruiting_metrics

Fetch recruiting metrics for a month or quarter, including jobs created, submissions, interviews, offers, placements, and stage conversion ratios.

Instructions

Recruiting metrics per calendar period: counts and same-period stage ratios.

Counts come from the tenant's configured activity concepts; a metric whose concept is not configured returns its status (e.g. "definition_missing") and no numbers. A count that could not be enumerated completely returns "incomplete" (never a partial number).

Args: metrics: 1 to 8 of jobs_created, client_submissions, interviews_scheduled, offers_extended, placements_created, submission_to_interview, interview_to_offer, offer_to_placement. date_from: Inclusive date (YYYY-MM-DD) in the reporting timezone, on a period boundary. date_to: Exclusive date (YYYY-MM-DD) on a period boundary; at most 12 months or 4 quarters. period: "month" (default) or "quarter".

Returns: JSON with status, tier, period, reporting_timezone, definition and per-metric cells.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`period`	No	month
`date_to`	Yes
`metrics`	Yes
`date_from`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful edge behavior: an unconfigured concept yields 'definition_missing' with no numbers, and an unenumerable count yields 'incomplete' rather than a partial figure. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The Args/Returns structure is front-loaded and each constraint earns its place. The Returns section partially duplicates the output schema, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter analytical tool with an output schema present, the definition covers input semantics, edge-case statuses, and period constraints thoroughly. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the 8 valid metric values and the 1-8 cardinality, defines date_from as inclusive and date_to as exclusive with YYYY-MM-DD format and period-boundary alignment, and specifies period as month (default) or quarter. This is information the bare schema does not carry.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and what it produces: 'Recruiting metrics per calendar period: counts and same-period stage ratios.' No sibling tool computes recruiting metrics, so the agent can identify this tool's role without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the axis definitions (metrics list, period boundary constraints, 12-month/4-quarter cap) rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. There are no competing siblings to route against, but the description never says when this should be selected over, say, get_activity or get_recent_placements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.