Inspect or advance hiring requisitions through the scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts.
Inspect or advance requisitions through the scoped chain lifecycle and verified receipts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| now | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| operation | No | list | |
| entity_ref | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| bundle_json | Yes | ||
| payload_json | No | {} |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies both read and write operations (inspect/advance) but does not clarify side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what 'verified receipts' entails.
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, but it is vague and relies on undefined terms. It is not effectively concise because it fails to convey clear information.
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 tool with 7 parameters, 2 required, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain operation values, the purpose of bundle_json, or expected outputs, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. Terms like operation, bundle_json, and payload_json are ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 general action (inspect or advance) on requisitions, which is more than a tautology. However, 'scoped chain lifecycle' and 'verified receipts' are undefined jargon, and it does not differentiate from sibling hiring tools like hr_live_advance_application or greenhouse_advance_application.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose inspect versus advance. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.