Huntflow MCP Server

list_rejection_reasons

Read-only

Retrieve rejection reasons for a Huntflow account to standardize decline tracking and review why applicants were rejected.

Instructions

Справочник причин отказа.

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_rejection_reasons"
  }
}

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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether results are account-scoped, whether they vary per account_id, whether the list is paginated, or what the raw flag changes behaviorally.

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 clause with zero waste, which is appropriately front-loaded. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it cannot score higher.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an account-scoped lookup with a curation toggle, the description omits the account requirement and any hint about what the reference contains, leaving it thin for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 both account_id and raw documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden and a baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no extra meaning about account scoping or the curated-vs-raw distinction.

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?

"Справочник причин отказа" identifies the resource (a reference list of rejection reasons) but offers no verb and no scope, and it largely restates the tool name list_rejection_reasons. The word "справочник" does signal a curated lookup list rather than a free-text search, which is slight added value over the 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from the many other reference-list siblings such as list_tags, list_sources, or list_stages. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the dictionary to consult before setting a rejection reason.

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