Huntflow MCP Server

get_vacancy

Read-only

Retrieves full details for a specific vacancy using an account ID and vacancy ID, enabling AI assistants to access ATS recruiting data for hiring workflows.

Instructions

Полная информация о вакансии.

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>",
      "vacancy_id": "<vacancy_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_vacancy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_id`	Yes	ID аккаунта
`vacancy_id`	Yes	ID вакансии

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needed to add context such as what fields come back, whether data is scoped to the account, or any access constraints. It adds none of this beyond 'full information', which is essentially a restatement of the read operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is a single short front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, but on the conciseness axis it holds up.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place return values could be characterized, and 'full information' leaves the agent unable to anticipate the response shape. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is below what is needed to call it confidently.

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% (account_id and vacancy_id are both documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the parameters 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?

The description says the tool returns full information about a vacancy, which names a resource but uses a vague scope ('Полная информация'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_applicant, get_resume, or list_vacancies, so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion cases. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the name.

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