Recruitee Ops Control Plane

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

create_opening_offer

Create a Recruitee offer, meaning a job or talent pool.

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

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It only states 'create', implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or the meaning of confirm/dry_run parameters beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Single clear sentence with no wasted words. Could benefit from a brief usage hint, but remains concise.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters including confirm/dry_run and generic JSON objects, the description lacks explanations of how to use these parameters effectively. No output schema exists, but description does not need to cover return values. Overall, incomplete for a complex generic write 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Create a Recruitee offer' with clarification that offer means a job or talent pool. This clearly identifies the resource and action, distinguishing from siblings like create_candidate. However, it does not differentiate from the generic api_request sibling.

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 like api_request or create_candidate. The description lacks context for usage decisions.

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

All Recruitee 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct, but the generic api_request overlaps with all specific CRUD tools, and list_candidate_search is confusingly named and may overlap with list_candidates. Some ambiguity exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_candidate, get_admin), but api_request deviates as noun_noun and list_candidate_search uses a non-standard noun phrase. Overall mostly consistent.

Tool Count5/5

17 tools cover a reasonable scope for an ATS integration, including candidates, openings, admins, and supporting entities. The count feels appropriate and not overwhelming.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers core CRUD for candidates and openings, but lacks update/delete operations, notes management beyond listing, and stage management. The generic api_request tool can compensate, but the dedicated tool set has notable gaps.

Resources

Need Help?