Fetch all notes on a candidate to review hiring team comments and evaluation history, including content, author, and timestamp.
List all notes on a candidate.
Use this to see existing evaluation notes or comments left by the hiring team.
Response: notes[] (id, content, createdAt, author).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| candidate_id | Yes | The candidate ID (UUID) to fetch notes for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds domain context (notes are evaluation comments) and response shape (notes[] with id, content, createdAt, author). This enriches the behavioral picture beyond the annotation alone, though it doesn't cover edge cases like pagination or errors.
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 three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, use case, and response structure. It is front-loaded with the core verb and contains no filler.
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 read-only list tool with one documented parameter and a response shape described in the text, the description is fully sufficient. The annotations cover safety, and the description tells an agent what it returns and when to use it.
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%: candidate_id is already fully described as 'The candidate ID (UUID) to fetch notes for.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with 'List all notes on a candidate,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clarifies the content as 'evaluation notes or comments left by the hiring team,' distinguishing it from the sibling ashby_add_candidate_note (which writes notes) and other getter 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?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to see existing evaluation notes or comments left by the hiring team.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the read-only versus add-note sibling is implied by the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.