Search BoondManager candidates by name, email, or custom criteria to find matching profiles quickly. Returns paginated results with configurable page size.
Search candidates by name, email, or other criteria
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, whether the search is exact or fuzzy, authentication requirements, or what happens when no query is provided. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a search tool.
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 concise sentence and is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. It is not bloated, though 'or other criteria' is unhelpfully vague and does not add much value.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a large sibling toolset, this description is notably incomplete. It does not explain return values, search semantics, pagination, or when to use it over the closely related 'boond_candidates_get'. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 0%, and the description only partially clarifies the 'query' parameter by mentioning name/email. It does not explain the meaning or format of the 'query' value, nor the role of 'page' and 'limit' beyond what the schema's defaults and bounds already imply. The description fails to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.
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 identifies the action ('search') and the resource ('candidates'), and gives specific search criteria ('name, email'). However, 'or other criteria' is vague, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'boond_candidates_get' beyond the general search-vs-get pattern.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state that this should be used for query-based listing while 'boond_candidates_get' is for retrieving a specific candidate, nor does it explain what 'other criteria' might be. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and generic search semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.