Factorial ATS Ops Control Plane

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

update_application

Update 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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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 only says 'Update' and gives no information about destructive potential, confirmation requirements, dry-run behavior, authentication needs, or consequences. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It earns its place but is minimal, which is acceptable for conciseness if not for completeness.

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?

The tool is a mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a generic parameter schema. The description does not mention the critical confirm/dry_run workflow, required path parameters, or what fields can be updated. It is incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are generic across all write operations (e.g., 'JSON request body for documented write operations') and do not explain what specific fields or path parameters apply to updating an application. The description adds no additional parameter context.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a Factorial ATS application'), making the tool's basic purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_candidate or update_feedback, relying on the resource name for differentiation.

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. It does not mention that get_application should be used for reading, nor does it clarify prerequisites or scenarios where updating an application is appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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?