Skip to main content
Glama
yarmijosp94

Evaluar MCP Server

by yarmijosp94

company_list

Retrieve available companies for authenticated users to select and manage recruitment processes on the Evaluar platform.

Instructions

List all companies available for the authenticated user. Must be logged in first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the company_list tool logic, fetching and returning a list of companies.
    export async function handleCompanyList(): Promise<string> {
      if (!isAuthenticated()) {
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: false,
          error: "Not authenticated. Please login first using auth_login.",
        });
      }
    
      try {
        const companies = await getCompanies();
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: true,
          companies: companies.map(c => ({
            id: c.id,
            name: c.companyName,
            country: c.countryName,
          })),
          count: companies.length,
        });
      } catch (error) {
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: false,
          error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error",
        });
      }
    }
  • The tool definition and schema for company_list.
    export const companyListTool = {
      name: "company_list",
      description: "List all companies available for the authenticated user. Must be logged in first.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {},
        required: [],
      },
    };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication requirement ('Must be logged in first'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavior such as pagination, rate limits, error handling, or return format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring 2.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List all companies...') followed by a prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and authentication need. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or error handling, which are important for a list operation. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps, scoring 3.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it naturally compensates by focusing on usage context. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as the description provides adequate semantic context without parameter clutter.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('companies'), specifying scope ('all companies available for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'company_select' by focusing on listing rather than selecting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like siblings (e.g., 'position_search' might also list positions), keeping it at 4.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: 'Must be logged in first' indicates a prerequisite, and 'for the authenticated user' implies user-specific access. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'company_select'), but the context is sufficient for basic guidance, warranting a 4.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yarmijosp94/evaluar-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server