Skip to main content
Glama

Factorial ATS Ops Control Plane

list_evaluation_forms

List evaluation_forms. Evaluation forms for feedback structure and coverage analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
sortNo
limitNo
cursorNo
includeNo
per_pageNo
query_jsonNoAdditional documented query parameters, including bracketed filter keys.
path_paramsNoValues for path placeholders such as {id} in a write operation.
detail_profileNooperational (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.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      -}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List evaluation_forms' and a vague purpose, with no mention of authorization, pagination, filtering, response format, or side effects. This is a significant disclosure gap for a list operation with 9 parameters.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short (two sentences), but the second sentence is unclear and doesn't earn its place. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, yet concise. Overall, it's brief but not effectively structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It omits pagination, filtering, response structure, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly in varied contexts.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't mention pagination, filters, sorting, or the detail_profile option, forcing the agent to guess parameter meanings solely from names and the partial schema descriptions.

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 action ('List evaluation_forms') and names a specific resource that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_answers or list_feedbacks. However, the second sentence 'Evaluation forms for feedback structure and coverage analysis' is vague and adds little clarity, and there's no explicit differentiation from similar tools beyond the resource name.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. It simply states the action with no context or recommendations.

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

Try in Browser

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