Skip to main content
Glama
yarmijosp94

Evaluar MCP Server

by yarmijosp94

company_select

Set the active company for managing recruitment processes on the Evaluar platform. Choose from available companies to work with specific organizational data.

Instructions

Select the active company to work with. Use company_list first to see available options.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyIdYesThe ID of the company to select

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that performs the logic for selecting a company.
    export async function handleCompanySelect(args: { companyId: string }): Promise<string> {
      if (!isAuthenticated()) {
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: false,
          error: "Not authenticated. Please login first using auth_login.",
        });
      }
    
      try {
        const success = await selectCompany(args.companyId);
        return JSON.stringify({
          success,
          message: success ? `Company ${args.companyId} selected successfully` : "Failed to select company",
        });
      } catch (error) {
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: false,
          error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error",
        });
      }
    }
  • The MCP tool definition (name, description, and input schema) for the 'company_select' tool.
    export const companySelectTool = {
      name: "company_select",
      description: "Select the active company to work with. Use company_list first to see available options.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          companyId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The ID of the company to select",
          },
        },
        required: ["companyId"],
      },
    };
  • src/index.ts:59-60 (registration)
    The registration/dispatch logic in the main file where 'company_select' is handled.
    case "company_select":
      result = await handleCompanySelect(args as { companyId: string });
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool changes the 'active company' context, which implies state mutation, but doesn't specify whether this affects other operations, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description adds basic context but lacks details about permissions, error conditions, or persistence of the selection.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and both sentences earn their place by adding distinct value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing operation with one parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains what the tool does and provides workflow guidance, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like authentication requirements or error handling. The lack of output schema means return values aren't documented, but the description compensates somewhat with context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'companyId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the company to select.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain valid IDs. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Select the active company to work with.' This specifies the verb ('select') and resource ('active company'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings beyond mentioning company_list, so it doesn't fully achieve the highest level of sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use company_list first to see available options.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after obtaining company IDs from company_list) and references a specific alternative tool, helping the agent understand the proper workflow sequence.

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