Grey Ridge Jobs MCP

detect_ats

Resolve a company's applicant-tracking system and board token from a slug or domain without fetching job postings, so you can check the ATS before running a job search.

Instructions

Resolve which applicant-tracking system a company uses and its board token, from a bare slug or domain, without pulling the full posting list. Returns {platform, token} or a not-detected result. Cheap probe — use before search_jobs when you only need to know the ATS.

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": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "detect_ats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`company`	Yes	Company slug ("bunq") or domain ("bunq.com").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load: it discloses cost ("cheap probe"), the negative behavior ("without pulling the full posting list"), and the return shape {platform, token} or not-detected. It omits any mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or whether probing a non-existent company errors or returns a soft not-detected — small remaining gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, when to use it. Zero filler and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the routing advice.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-param probe tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the return shape and the cost signal, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only the exact form of a "not-detected" response is left unspecified.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single param is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by framing both accepted forms ("bare slug or domain") as alternatives and emphasizing "bare" (no protocol/path), which reduces malformed inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: resolve which applicant-tracking system a company uses plus its board token, from a bare slug or domain. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_jobs by noting it does not pull the full posting list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives a concrete routing rule: "use before search_jobs when you only need to know the ATS." That names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool rather than leaving it to inference.

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

Deploy Server