Aggregates chat and interview data to generate a unified candidate progress view, helping recruiters track BOSS Zhipin candidates through each hiring stage.
聚合聊天和面试数据，生成统一候选进度视图 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.12.0v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses access constraints via the availability block (candidate role only) and implies a read-only view generation, but does not specify permissions beyond role, rate limits, or whether data is persisted or mutated.
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 front-loads the purpose, but the appended availability block contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' which harms structure and suggests copy-paste. This redundancy reduces overall conciseness quality.
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 zero-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the description gives the high-level purpose and access constraints but does not detail what the unified candidate progress view contains or how to interpret it. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb (聚合/生成) and resource (聊天和面试数据 -> 统一候选进度视图), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as boss_chat_summary or boss_interviews, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to alternative tools. The availability block only states access constraints (roles=candidate) and does not explain usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.