Huntflow MCP Server

list_divisions

Read-only

Retrieves the department and division directory for a HuntFlow account so you can resolve organizational units during recruiting workflows.

Instructions

Справочник подразделений (отделов).

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_divisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No	Вернуть полный сырой ответ без курирования
`account_id`	Yes	ID аккаунта HuntFlow

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description's main remaining job would be to add context — it adds none. It says nothing about scoping by account, pagination, whether all divisions are returned, or what the raw flag changes, all of which matter for correct invocation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single short phrase is efficient but under-specified rather than truly concise — there is no verb, no scope, and nothing front-loaded about usage. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

Although an output schema and annotations exist, the description leaves the agent without any indication of account scoping or how results are organized. For a directory-listing tool among many similar list_* siblings, this is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both account_id and raw are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no meaning beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 Russian phrase 'Справочник подразделений (отделов)' identifies the resource (a reference directory of divisions/departments) but supplies no verb and never states that it returns a list. An agent can guess it is a read of department reference data, but the purpose is implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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 such as needing an account_id, and no reference to any alternative among the many sibling list_* tools. The agent must infer that this is the lookup to call when department data is needed.

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