Skip to main content
Glama
yarmijosp94

Evaluar MCP Server

by yarmijosp94

position_search

Search active positions by name to find relevant job openings in the Evaluar recruitment platform, returning top 10 matches sorted by creation date.

Instructions

Search for positions by name. Returns top 10 matching active positions sorted by creation date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query for position name (e.g., 'asesor ventas', 'developer')

Implementation Reference

  • The handlePositionSearch function implements the logic for the position_search tool by calling searchPositions and formatting the result.
    export async function handlePositionSearch(args: { query: string }): Promise<string> {
      if (!isAuthenticated()) {
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: false,
          error: "Not authenticated. Please login first using auth_login.",
        });
      }
    
      try {
        const positions = await searchPositions(args.query);
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: true,
          positions: positions.map(p => ({
            id: p.id,
            name: p.name,
            agencyId: p.agencyId,
            departmentId: p.departmentId,
            status: p.status,
          })),
          count: positions.length,
          note: positions.length === 0 
            ? "No positions found. Try a different search term." 
            : "Use the position id, agencyId, and departmentId when creating a process.",
        });
      } catch (error) {
        return JSON.stringify({
          success: false,
          error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error",
        });
      }
    }
  • The definition of the position_search tool, including its name, description, and input schema.
    export const positionSearchTool = {
      name: "position_search",
      description: "Search for positions by name. Returns top 10 matching active positions sorted by creation date.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          query: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Search query for position name (e.g., 'asesor ventas', 'developer')",
          },
        },
        required: ["query"],
      },
    };
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema by specifying that it returns 'top 10 matching active positions sorted by creation date,' which clarifies scope and sorting. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but potentially complex search operation.

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 front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the action, resource, and key behavioral traits (like result limit and sorting). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some behavior (like sorting and limit), but lacks output details (e.g., what fields are returned) and broader context (e.g., authentication needs), which could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra syntax or format details), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancement.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('positions by name'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling search tools (though none are listed among siblings), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), exclusions, or comparisons with other tools (e.g., how it differs from 'process_assign_position' or 'process_create' if relevant). This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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