runwayMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_application_status

Set or change the application status for a saved job by job ID or URL; optionally append a dated follow-up note while preserving the stored analysis.

Instructions

Set the application status of a stored job record, by id or url.

Transitions are deliberately UNVALIDATED — any of the 7 status values may transition to any other. This tool NEVER raises.

notes APPENDS one dated line to status_notes and never touches notes, the analysis field. Those were a single column until the two purposes collided in practice: recording "applied on the 17th" wiped the reasoning behind the score, so the highest-scoring jobs in the store were exactly the ones whose analysis was gone. Splitting them makes that structurally impossible rather than a rule to remember.

To edit the analysis itself, call save_job_analysis with an id — its omit-preserve semantics leave every field you do not pass alone.

Args: status: One of: not_applied, applied, interviewing, offer, rejected, withdrawn, ghosted. id: Job id (preferred — always resolvable, unlike url). url: Alternate lookup key when id is not known. notes: Optional follow-up note, appended to the timeline as "[YYYY-MM-DD] — ". Omitted, the timeline is left untouched and only the status changes.

Returns: SetStatusResult with success=True, id, url, status, previous_status and the resulting status_notes on success; success=False with error="invalid_status" (record unchanged), error="not_found", or error/message on a store failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`url`	No
`notes`	No
`status`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`url`	No
`error`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`success`	Yes
`status_notes`	No
`previous_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0Sep 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / status_notes

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Status Notes"
+}

Addedv0.3.1Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it states transitions are deliberately unvalidated, the tool never raises, notes appends a dated line to status_notes and never touches the analysis field, and it documents all error modes such as invalid_status and not_found. The historical rationale for splitting status_notes from notes adds meaningful context beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in behavioral caveats, parameter details, and return values in a logical order. The historical explanation for why notes and status_notes are separate is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but it earns its place by preventing a likely misuse. There is no repetitive or filler content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, all parameter semantics, exact failure modes, return payload fields, and the relationship to sibling tools like save_job_analysis. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to interpret the result.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does: status is enumerated with all valid values, id is the preferred lookup key, url is the fallback, and notes specifies its exact append format and behavior when omitted. This goes well beyond what the bare schema properties provide.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the application status of a stored job record, by id or url.' It also distinguishes itself from save_job_analysis by clarifying that editing analysis is a separate sibling tool's job. The seven allowed statuses are listed explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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?

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: use id over url because id is always resolvable, use this tool for status changes, and use save_job_analysis with an id to edit analysis fields. It also explains the note-append behavior versus the analysis field so the agent does not misuse notes. This is explicit routing, not merely implied.

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

Deploy Server