Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenHire — Real Job Postings, Ghost Jobs Scored

OpenHire — Real Job Postings, Ghost Jobs Scored

by gzchenhao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Authorize application

authorize_application
Idempotent

Record an authorized, employer-direct application. REFUSES résumés.

Instructions

Record an authorized, employer-direct application. REFUSES résumés.

Idempotent: the same fingerprint authorizing the same job again gets the original receipt back (already_authorized: true); no second record is written.

(Formerly apply — renamed to make explicit that this only records the user's authorization to apply as themselves; it never submits anything on their behalf.)

This tool never accepts a résumé, file, cover letter, name, email or phone — a résumé never transits the server. It only takes a job_id, an anonymous fingerprint, and an explicit per-job authorization. On success it returns the apply_channel (the employer's own application URL) for the user to submit as themselves, plus resume_transmitted=false. Do NOT paste résumé content into any argument.

REFUSES means refuses: any argument this tool does not declare (a resume key, a cv, a file, anything) is answered with ERR_PII_NOT_ACCEPTED and nothing is recorded. It is not silently dropped, so a client that sends one finds out.

Args: job_id: the job to apply to (from search_jobs / check_watches). fingerprint: the user's anonymous fingerprint. authorized: must be true — explicit per-job consent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>",
      "authorized": "<authorized>"
    },
    "name": "authorize_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes
authorizedYes
fingerprintYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: exact idempotency semantics (`already_authorized: true`, original receipt returned), refusal behavior for undeclared arguments (`ERR_PII_NOT_ACCEPTED`), and the returned `apply_channel` plus `resume_transmitted=false`. This is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and the résumé refusal, and each paragraph has a clear purpose. It is somewhat repetitive about résumé/file refusal, but that repetition is defensible for a safety-critical constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still explains key return behavior (`apply_channel`, `resume_transmitted=false`, `already_authorized: true`). It covers mutation behavior, idempotency, argument refusal, and the no-submission guarantee, leaving no significant gap for calling the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all three parameters: `job_id` comes from search/watches, `fingerprint` is anonymous, and `authorized` must be true for explicit per-job consent. It also warns that any undeclared argument is refused, which is important operational parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it records the user's authorization to apply as themselves and explicitly never submits anything. It distinguishes itself from its former name (`apply`) and clarifies the job_id source (`search_jobs` / `check_watches`), so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is clear: the tool is for recording explicit per-job authorization and returns the employer's own application URL for the user to submit. It does not explicitly compare against nearby siblings like `watch_intent` or `check_watches`, but it gives enough context for correct selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools