Change an existing interview's status to scheduled, completed, passed, failed, no-show, rescheduled, or pending using campaign, application slug, and index.
Change the status of an existing interview
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Application slug | |
| index | Yes | Interview index (0-based) | |
| notes | No | Additional notes | |
| status | Yes | New interview status | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet only implies a mutation. It says nothing about whether status transitions are validated, whether notes replace or append, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/state are needed. The enumeration of valid statuses lives only in the schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the notes parameter entirely, never explains the required campaign/slug/index coordinate system, and gives no return-value expectations. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 all five parameters (including the enum for status and 0-based index) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb ('change') and resource ('status of an existing interview'), which cleanly separates it from add_interview, list_interviews, and read_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_interview or list_interviews, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what 'existing' requires (campaign/slug/index must already resolve). The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.