Huntflow MCP Server

search_applicants

Read-only

Search applicants by name, email, or phone, then filter results by vacancy, hiring stage, or tag to locate candidates in a HuntFlow account.

Instructions

Поиск кандидатов по имени/email/телефону и фильтрам (вакансия, этап, тег).

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": "search_applicants"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Поиск по имени, email или телефону
`raw`	No	Вернуть полный сырой ответ без курирования
`tag`	No	Фильтр по ID тега
`page`	No	Номер страницы (с 1)
`count`	No	Кол-во на странице (макс 100)
`status`	No	Фильтр по ID этапа подбора
`vacancy`	No	Фильтр по ID вакансии
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read, so the description need not re-establish that. It adds the scope of what can be searched but says nothing about result limits, paging behavior, or what the 'raw' uncured mode changes. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the filters, with no filler. Near-optimal for the amount of information actually conveyed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full annotation/schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values. The remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling listing/fetch tools and any note on the 'raw' flag, which keeps it just short of complete for an 8-parameter tool.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description echoes q (name/email/phone) and the vacancy/stage/tag filters, adding only mild reinforcing context and nothing about page, count, or raw.

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?

States a specific verb ('Поиск') plus the resource ('кандидатов') and enumerates the searchable fields (name/email/phone) and filter dimensions (vacancy, stage, tag). An agent can immediately tell this is a filtered candidate lookup. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_vacancy_applicants or get_applicant.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: listing both free-text identifiers and structured filters hints that the tool is for partial-match lookups or filtered browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to alternatives such as list_vacancy_applicants for vacancy-scoped listing.

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