ai-toolkit

ats_check_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify whether an ATS job board is live and belongs to the expected company without fetching postings. Returns status, board name, and total listings; flags name mismatches for renamed or acquired boards.

Instructions

Check whether a board is still alive, without pulling any job data.

The cheap quarterly pass over a roster: it answers "is this slug still a real board, is it still this company, and is anything posted on it" and returns counts only — no postings. Use ats_fetch_board when you want the jobs.

Returns status, board_name (the org name the API reports, where the platform publishes one), total_on_board, checked_at, and detail. Pass company to have the board's name checked against what you expected; a NAME_MISMATCH means the slug and the company have come apart, which is what an acquisition or a rename looks like from here. As everywhere in these tools, a SLUG_NOT_FOUND or NOT_FOUND_OR_API_DISABLED is a prompt to go check, not a finding that the company is gone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`company`	No
`platform`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: it returns no postings, reports the board_name as the API publishes it, and explains what SLUG_NOT_FOUND or NOT_FOUND_OR_API_DISABLED actually mean operationally. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense without being bloated. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists return fields, parameter-sensitive behavior, and error semantics in a logical order. Every sentence contributes useful decision-making or interpretation context.

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 read-only board check with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it differs from siblings, what its return fields mean, and how to interpret error-like statuses. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the optional company parameter well, including its purpose and the NAME_MISMATCH outcome. The slug and platform parameters are less explicitly defined, though 'is this slug still a real board' and the platform enum provide baselines.

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 verb and resource ('Check whether a board is still alive') and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling ats_fetch_board by clarifying it returns counts only, not job data. It makes the tool's narrow scope immediately recognizable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit routing instruction: 'Use ats_fetch_board when you want the jobs.' It also explains when to pass the optional company parameter and what a NAME_MISMATCH signifies, so an agent can decide between this tool and related ATS tools with clear context.

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