Fetch recommended candidate details and initial chat parameters for a recruiter's job posting. Provide job ID and page to retrieve talent cards.
招聘者模式：读取推荐牛人完整卡片和首次开聊所需参数 [可用性: 可用性: roles=recruiter; candidate_platforms=-; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码 | |
| job_id | Yes | 招聘职位的加密 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. '读取' indicates a read-only operation and the object of the read is specified, but it does not state side effects, auth requirements beyond the embedded availability line, or pagination/return behavior beyond the page parameter.
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 short and action-first, but it contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix that adds noise. Overall it is compact but not polished.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the main return contents (full cards and first-chat parameters) and role/platform constraints, which is adequate. However, it does not explain what '首次开聊所需参数' looks like or how the results are ordered/paginated, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptive labels ('招聘职位的加密 ID', '页码'); the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the work.
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 names a specific action ('读取' / read), a specific resource ('推荐牛人完整卡片' recommended-talent full cards), and an additional deliverable ('首次开聊所需参数' first-chat parameters). It clearly goes beyond the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.
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?
It explicitly scopes the tool to recruiter mode ('招聘者模式') and to the zhipin-recruiter platform in the availability metadata, and the '首次开聊' phrasing signals the intended use case. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.