Huntflow MCP Server

list_vacancy_applicants

Read-only

Retrieves applicants for a chosen HuntFlow vacancy and supports hiring-stage filtering plus paginated results to review candidate pipelines.

Instructions

Кандидаты, прикреплённые к конкретной 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": "list_vacancy_applicants"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Вернуть полный сырой ответ без курирования
`page`	No	Номер страницы (с 1)
`count`	No	Кол-во на странице (макс 100)
`status`	No	Фильтр по ID этапа подбора
`account_id`	Yes	ID аккаунта HuntFlow
`vacancy_id`	Yes	ID вакансии

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. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention of pagination behavior, the status filter's effect on results, or what the 'raw' flag changes, even though raw output versus curated output is a meaningful behavioral distinction.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero waste and the scope constraint is front-loaded. However, at one clause long it is underspecified rather than genuinely concise, leaving no room for any operational detail.

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 six parameters, required IDs, pagination, a status filter, and a raw-output toggle, the tool is more complex than a one-line noun phrase suggests. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description never mentions filtering or paging, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior entirely from the schema.

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%, so all six parameters (account_id, vacancy_id, status, page, count, raw) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource and its scope ('candidates attached to a specific vacancy'), which pairs with the verb in the tool name to convey listing vacancy-scoped applicants. However, the sentence itself is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the operation (list/retrieve) is only inferable from the name, and there is no explicit differentiation from search_applicants.

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 at all — no mention of when this is preferable to search_applicants or to reading applicants via get_vacancy. The implied use case (fetch all applicants for one vacancy) can be guessed, but nothing is stated and no alternatives or exclusions are given.

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