Skip to main content
Glama

update_application_stage

Update a job application's stage to track progress through the hiring process. Choose from stages like Applied, Interviewing, Offer, or Rejected.

Instructions

Update the stage/status of a job application. Valid stages: WISHLIST, APPLIED, INTERVIEWING, OFFER, REJECTED, WITHDRAWN.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
application_idYesJob application ID to update
stageYesNew application stage
notesNoOptional notes about this stage change

Implementation Reference

  • index.js:216-217 (registration)
    The tool 'update_application_stage' is defined in the WEEK2_TOOLS array with its name, description, and inputSchema.
    },
    {
  • Input schema for update_application_stage: requires application_id (string) and stage (string enum with values applied, screening, interview, technical, offer, accepted, rejected, withdrawn).
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          application_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Application ID to update',
          },
          stage: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['applied', 'screening', 'interview', 'technical', 'offer', 'accepted', 'rejected', 'withdrawn'],
            description: 'New pipeline stage for the application',
          },
        },
        required: ['application_id', 'stage'],
      },
    },
  • All tools (including update_application_stage) are proxied to the backend via handleToolsCall using callBackend(). If the backend is unreachable, returns a stub message indicating the handler is not yet deployed.
    async function handleToolsCall(id, params) {
      const toolName = params && params.name;
    
      try {
        const result = await callBackend({ jsonrpc: '2.0', id, method: 'tools/call', params });
        send({ ...result, id });
      } catch (err) {
        // If the backend is unreachable and this is a new tool, return a clear stub message
        if (NEW_TOOL_NAMES.has(toolName)) {
          send({
            jsonrpc: '2.0',
            id,
            result: {
              content: [
                {
                  type: 'text',
                  text: JSON.stringify({
                    status: 'not_implemented',
                    tool: toolName,
                    message: `The '${toolName}' tool is defined in the MCP layer but the backend handler is not yet deployed. Backend error: ${err.message}`,
                  }, null, 2),
                },
              ],
              isError: false,
            },
          });
        } else {
          send({ jsonrpc: '2.0', id, error: { code: -32000, message: err.message } });
        }
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwrites previous stage), permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this lacks sufficient transparency.

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 description is concise: one sentence plus a bullet list of stages. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., include required fields hint). Still efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and valid inputs but omits return behavior, error conditions, and any prerequisite context (e.g., application must exist). Adequate but not complete for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema (e.g., valid stages are already in enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'stage/status of a job application', and lists valid stages. It distinguishes from siblings like 'track_application' and 'update_job_status' which might have different scopes.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (updating stage) and lists valid stages, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, alternatives, or prerequisites (e.g., requirement that application exists). No comparison to sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Exidian-Tech/placed-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server