Factorial ATS Ops Control Plane

by app.vercel.ats-ops-control-plane-gateway

create_application

Create a Factorial ATS application.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set true to run this live change. Ignored when dry_run=true.
`dry_run`	No	Preview the action without sending it.
`body_json`	No	JSON request body for documented write operations.
`query_json`	No	Additional documented query parameters, including bracketed filter keys.
`path_params`	No	Values for path placeholders such as {id} in a write operation.
`headers_json`	No	Additional request headers for endpoints that require vendor-specific headers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJun 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Set true to run this live change. Ignored when dry_run=true.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Create a Factorial ATS application.' It does not mention that creation may be a live mutation, require confirmation (confirm parameter), or support dry-run previews (dry_run parameter). This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to read, though it might be too sparse for the complexity of the tool, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the live-change confirmation flow (confirm/dry_run), what an 'application' entails in Factorial ATS, or any limitations. The description leaves the agent without enough context to safely invoke the mutation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters like body_json or query_json should be used for creating an application, but it doesn't need to because the schema is comprehensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a Factorial ATS application.' uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('Factorial ATS application'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_application or get_application. It fully states what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description is purely declarative and does not mention context such as whether to use dry_run first or how it relates to other application tools.

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

All Factorial ATS Ops Control Plane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each get/list tool targets a distinct entity (answers, applications, candidates, etc.), and the generic api_request is clearly an escape hatch for undocumented endpoints rather than an overlapping tool. The singular/plural lists are unambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_x, get_x, list_xs, update_x, delete_x). Two outliers exist: api_request (noun_noun) and get_control_plane_capabilities (not a resource CRUD), but they are minor.

Tool Count2/5

At 39 tools, the server is heavily over-populated. Nearly every entity has both a get and list tool, and many CRUD combinations exist, but the count exceeds what is typically needed for an MCP server and could overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The read surface is comprehensive with get/list for 13 entities, and write coverage for core resources (candidates, applications, feedback, job postings, webhooks). Missing delete operations and some create/update limits are acceptable for an ops control plane, though a direct update_application_phase would fill a gap.

Resources

Need Help?