Teamtailor Ops Control Plane

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

get_note

Get one note. Notes for activity hygiene, follow-up context, and recruiter handoff analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	note ID.
`include`	No
`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.
`detail_profile`	No	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.	operational

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed4 schema fields changedJun 7, 2026

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"
-}

First observedJun 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get one note' and gives use cases, but omits return format, authentication needs, or the fact that the 'full' details may include personal fields (which is only in the schema). No contradictions exist, but critical behavioral context is missing.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. The second sentence adds some vague purpose context but isn't egregiously wasteful. It earns a 4 for conciseness, though the second sentence could be more specific.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description explains almost nothing about behavior, return values, or the differences between detail profiles. It omits critical context like pagination, field projections, or the meaning of 'operational' vs 'full'. The schema covers parameter syntax but not operational context, so the description is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 high at 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, relying entirely on the schema. The missing 'include' parameter is undocumented in both description and schema, but the high coverage means the description doesn't need to compensate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states 'Get one note' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from list_notes by emphasizing a single note retrieval. It also adds purpose context ('activity hygiene, follow-up context, and recruiter handoff analysis') without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single note in specific recruiting contexts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_notes or other tools. There's no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so it only provides implied guidance.

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 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

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

Need Help?