Retrieve the reference of rejection reasons for a specified HuntFlow account. Use this to access standardized reasons for candidate rejections.
Справочник причин отказа.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Вернуть полный сырой ответ без курирования | |
| account_id | Yes | ID аккаунта HuntFlow |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| total_items | No | ||
| next_page_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description gives no indication of behavior such as read-only, side effects, or data returned. The tool could perform any operation; the single phrase does not disclose whether it is safe, deterministic, or what side effects might occur.
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?
The description is extremely brief (one phrase), which is concise in word count but too sparse to convey any actionable meaning. It is front-loaded but fails to include even a verb, so it does not effectively earn its place as a tool description.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of rejection reasons), any filtering or ordering, or how it relates to other tools. An agent cannot infer the tool's basic function from this description.
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?
The input schema fully documents both parameters: 'account_id' is described as the HuntFlow account ID, and 'raw' is described as returning the full raw response without curation. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema.
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 'Справочник причин отказа' is a noun phrase meaning 'Reference book of rejection reasons.' It does not state any verb or action, so it is unclear whether the tool lists, retrieves, or modifies data. This fails to convey the tool's fundamental purpose.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to the many sibling tools (e.g., list_vacancies, search_applicants). It does not mention any conditions, contexts, or alternatives, leaving an agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.