Teamtailor Ops Control Plane

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

list_interviews

List interviews. Interview records for process load and feedback obligation analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`include`	No
`per_page`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List interviews,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, field restrictions, or any side effects. The existence of the 'detail_profile' parameter is not mentioned, which is a significant behavioral nuance.

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, consisting of two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds some purpose context but is vaguely worded. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence could be more informative without adding length.

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 list tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is incomplete. It provides no guidance on filtering, pagination, response structure, or when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The schema partially compensates, but the description leaves too much unsaid for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no parameter information. Schema coverage is only 33% (3 of 9 parameters), and the poorly described parameters (page, sort, limit, cursor, include, per_page) are not explained in either the schema or the description. The description's purpose clause does not map to any parameter.

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 'List interviews' clearly states the verb and resource. The additional phrase 'Interview records for process load and feedback obligation analysis' provides some context, but it is vague and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_interview' or other list_* tools. It is clear enough for basic identification.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_interview' or other list tools. The purpose phrase suggests a use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool or when to avoid it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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?