Skip to main content
Glama

Teamtailor Ops Control Plane

list_divisions

List divisions. Divisions for organization-level slicing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
sortNo
limitNo
cursorNo
includeNo
per_pageNo
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

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and gives a vague purpose, failing to mention pagination, read-only nature, filtering behavior, or return format. This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise at two sentences, but the first sentence 'List divisions' is redundant with the tool name, and the second adds only minimal context. While not overly verbose, it is under-specified and the structure is not optimally informative.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is deeply inadequate. It does not address return values, pagination, parameter usage, or operational details, making it nearly useless for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% with six parameters lacking descriptions. The description adds no parameter information, leaving the agent to rely entirely on bare schema names like 'page' and 'sort'. It does not compensate for the low coverage at all.

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 clearly states the tool lists divisions and adds context that divisions are for organization-level slicing. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling list tools like list_departments or list_teams, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Divisions for organization-level slicing' implies a usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit direction.

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

Try in Browser

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