Fetch every interview tied to a job application by campaign and slug, so you can track interview progress and prepare next steps.
List all interviews for an application
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Application slug | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, empty-state behavior, or whether interviews from all campaigns are included.
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?
A single dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or repeated.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should at least hint at what is returned or how results are ordered.
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 both required parameters (slug, campaign) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
Clear verb (list) plus resource (interviews) scoped to an application. An agent can distinguish it from add_interview and mark_interview, though the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_interview or mark_interview. The context of use is only implied by the verb 'list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.