Huntflow MCP Server

list_accounts

Read-only

Lists available HuntFlow accounts to help you identify and select the correct account for recruiting data queries or workflows.

Instructions

Список доступных аккаунтов HuntFlow.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No	Вернуть полный сырой ответ без курирования

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`total`	No
`total_items`	No
`next_page_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a non-mutating read, so safety is covered by annotations. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on scope ('available' to whom), pagination, rate limits, or what an account record contains. It essentially repeats the tool name in another language.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; there is no front-loaded clarifying detail an agent could act on.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, has only one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, the ambiguous term 'available' (available to whom, under what permissions) is left unexplained, which is the one piece of context a caller actually needs.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents 'raw'. The description does not mention it or explain when raw output is useful, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Список доступных аккаунтов HuntFlow' — list available HuntFlow accounts), so an agent can tell it retrieves accounts rather than coworkers, vacancies, or other entities. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the many other list_* siblings in any explicit way, relying on resource naming 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether accounts must be selected or are scoped to the authenticated user), and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer the context of use entirely 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.