Personio Recruiting Ops Plane

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

create_webhook

Create a Personio webhook.

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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description says nothing about side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or destructive nature. The agent has no behavioral insight.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely concise at five words, but under-specified for a tool with six parameters. Lacks structure (e.g., no examples, no important notes).

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover return values, event types, or required context for webhook creation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter relationships or required combinations.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Create a Personio webhook,' which is clear and uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like update_webhook or delete_webhook.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_webhook). No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

All Personio Recruiting Ops 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

C2.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target specific entities and actions, but the generic api_request tool overlaps with many endpoints, potentially causing confusion. Additionally, similar-sounding tools like get_application and list_applications are clearly distinct, so the impact is limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_recruiting_application, list_applications, get_candidate). There are no mixed conventions or ambiguous abbreviations, making the naming predictable and clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 30 tools, the server covers a broad domain including applications, candidates, jobs, webhooks, and organizational entities. While slightly heavy, each tool serves a distinct purpose and the count is justified given the scope.

Completeness3/5

The tool set is read-heavy, with get and list operations for most entities, but missing update and delete for core recruiting resources (applications, candidates). This gaps agents from performing full lifecycle management without resorting to the generic api_request.

Resources

Need Help?