list_folder_applicantsRetrieve applicants saved in a resume folder, 25 per page, with each row showing the post they applied to so employers can review and screen candidates by folder.
List applicants saved in a resume folder, 25 per page. Each row includes the post it applied to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| folder_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: 25 results per page and that each row includes its `post`. It still omits ordering, error behavior, and whether additional pagination metadata is returned.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by pagination and row-content details. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 simple read-only, two-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential call behavior: folder scope, page size, and a notable returned field. It could be more complete about result shape and pagination limits, but the core invocation context is present.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: it explains that results are 25 per page, clarifying the `page` parameter, and frames `folder_id` as a resume folder, but it does not explain how to obtain the folder ID or how page numbering works.
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 states a specific verb and resource: list applicants saved in a resume folder. It does not distinguish this from the sibling `list_applicants`, so sibling routing is left implicit.
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?
The folder-scoped wording implies this is for listing applicants within one folder, but the description never says when to use it instead of `list_applicants` or other applicant-listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.