Search for positions by name with wildcard search to find matching roles for eTalent processes in Evaluar.
Search for positions by name (supports wildcard search)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| size | No | Number of results per page (default: 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query for position name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that wildcard search is supported, but it does not disclose the wildcard syntax, the shape or format of results, authentication expectations, or any additional behavior such as case sensitivity or pagination beyond schema defaults.
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 with no filler, and the key information—what is searched and how—is front-loaded. It is concise while still conveying the wildcard capability.
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 search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without information about what the search returns, how wildcards are expressed, or whether search operates within an already selected company context.
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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds meaningful semantic value by revealing that the query parameter accepts wildcard patterns, which is not stated in the input schema.
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 clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('positions'), plus a specific criterion (by name) and a notable capability (wildcard search). Among the siblings, no other tool is a position-search tool, so the resource itself distinguishes the tool even though no sibling is named.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any workflow context such as selecting a company before searching. Sibling tools like company_select and process_assign_position imply a surrounding workflow, but the description leaves that entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.