Factorial ATS Ops Control Plane

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

get_application_phase

Get one application_phase. Application phases for ATS funnel state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	application_phase ID.
`include`	No
`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.
`detail_profile`	No	operational (default) returns a compact recruiting-ops projection with names, prose, and other personal fields omitted; pass full to include the raw API payload with those fields.	operational

Schema Changelog

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

Changed3 schema fields changedJun 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / detail_profile / default
```
Previous value: -"full"New value: +"operational"
```

changedInput schema / properties / detail_profile / description

Previous value: -"full returns raw API payload; operational returns a compact recruiting-ops projection."New value: +"operational (default) returns a compact recruiting-ops projection with names, prose, and other personal fields omitted; pass full to include the raw API payload with those fields."

removedInput schema / properties / reason

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required when detail_profile=full.",
-  "maxLength": 500,
-  "minLength": 12,
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedJun 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 explaining behavior, but it only says 'Get one application_phase' with no mention of return format, auth requirements, error behavior, or side effects. This is a read operation, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the obvious implication of 'Get'.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences, with the key action front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the second sentence adds limited context and could be more informative without making the description longer.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It does not explain what the returned application_phase contains, how the detail_profile affects the response, or any operational nuances, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects.

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 high at 80%, with descriptions for id, query_json, path_params, and detail_profile, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, keeping the score at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Get one application_phase', identifying the exact verb, resource, and singular scope, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_application_phases. The additional context 'Application phases for ATS funnel state' clarifies the domain purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_application_phases or get_application. The description only states what the tool does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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?