Huntflow MCP Server

get_applicant

Read-only

Fetch complete applicant details by account ID and applicant ID from Huntflow ATS to support AI-assisted recruiting, resume review, and candidate evaluation workflows.

Instructions

Полная информация о кандидате.

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": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "applicant_id": "<applicant_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_applicant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	Yes	ID аккаунта
`applicant_id`	Yes	ID кандидата

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the word "Полная", giving a weak hint that the whole record is returned, but says nothing about field coverage, error behavior for missing applicants, or permissions beyond what the annotation already establishes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler, which is efficient, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight writing. It is front-loaded but carries almost no actionable content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to communicate what a "full" applicant record looks like, and it does not. For a read tool returning a presumably rich entity, omitting the return shape leaves a meaningful gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with account_id and applicant_id both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about these identifiers or their relationship.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Полная информация о кандидате" names a resource (candidate) and implies a retrieval, so an agent can roughly tell it fetches a single applicant's record rather than listing or searching. However it never specifies what "full information" contains or how it differs from siblings like get_applicant_resumes or search_applicants, leaving the purpose at a vague level.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when another sibling (e.g. search_applicants or get_applicant_resumes) would be the better choice. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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