Skip to main content
Glama

Teamtailor Ops Control Plane

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

get_division

Get one division. Divisions for organization-level slicing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesdivision ID.
includeNo
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. Changed4 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / path_params
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Values for path placeholders such as {id} in a write operation.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / reason
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required when detail_profile=full.",
-  "maxLength": 500,
-  "minLength": 12,
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get one division,' offering no information about return format, whether it supports partial responses, permissions required, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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: two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action 'Get one division' immediately. The second sentence 'Divisions for organization-level slicing' is somewhat vague but adds a hint of purpose without bloating the text. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a single-resource getter with 5 parameters and no output schema, so some contextual depth would help. The description provides minimal context beyond the tool's core action. Given the schema explains detail_profile and query_json, the description is adequately complete for a simple get, but could benefit from noting the division's organizational role or response behavior.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters (id, detail_profile, query_json, path_params). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable. The 'include' parameter lacks a description, but that gap isn't filled here.

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 and resource: 'Get one division.' It distinguishes itself from list_divisions by emphasizing 'one' (singular) and adds a domain hint with 'Divisions for organization-level slicing.' While not as explicit as naming alternative tools, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_divisions or other get_* tools. The phrase 'Divisions for organization-level slicing' is vague and doesn't clarify selection criteria. No alternatives are named and no exclusion conditions are given.

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

All Teamtailor Ops Control Plane toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to specific resource names and detailed descriptions. However, the large number of similar get/list pairs (e.g., get_activity, get_answer) could cause an agent to misselect without careful reading, slightly reducing clarity.

Naming Consistency5/5

The naming follows a strict and predictable verb_noun pattern (list_/get_/create_/update_) using snake_case throughout. The only outlier is 'api_request', but it is a generic tool and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 62 tools, the set is large but arguably justified by the breadth of the Teamtailor domain (candidates, jobs, applications, interviews, notes, etc.). Still, it exceeds the typical 3-15 range for high coherence, making navigation heavy for agents.

Completeness3/5

The tool set provides comprehensive read access (get/list) for most entities, but lacks delete operations entirely and has limited update coverage (only candidate, job, job_application). The 'api_request' tool can compensate, but the surface has notable gaps in mutation capabilities.

Resources