Retrieve key recruitment metrics, including application trends, interview and offer rates, and period-over-period comparisons, to assess performance over a specified date range.
Get analytics overview: application trends, interview rates, offer rates, and period-over-period comparisons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | No | End date ISO8601 (default: today) | |
| startDate | No | Start date ISO8601 (default: 30 days ago) |
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 full burden. It mentions the metrics returned but doesn't disclose behavior like default date ranges (though the schema covers defaults), whether data is read-only, or any rate limits. The description adds some value by listing metrics but doesn't cover behavioral traits like aggregation granularity or data freshness.
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 that front-loads the main purpose and lists key metrics. It's concise and structured well, though it could be slightly more explicit about usage context.
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 read-only analytics tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain what 'period-over-period comparisons' means in terms of output format, nor does it clarify how this differs from get_dashboard_stats. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should carry more weight.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (startDate, endDate) with defaults. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: retrieving an analytics overview with specific metrics (application trends, interview rates, offer rates, period-over-period comparisons). The verb 'get' and resource 'analytics overview' are specific. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_dashboard_stats, but the metrics listed make it distinguishable.
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 implies usage for analytics queries but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_dashboard_stats or list_applications. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it's for high-level analytics, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.